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

previous chapter: 12.3.7 Aurangzeb

§ 757.

(1)

Aʿẓam al-ḥarb, a detailed account of Aʿẓam S̲h̲āh’s brief reign (10 D̲h̲ū ’l-Ḥijjah 1118/15 March 1707–18 Rabīʿ i 1119/19 June 1708), by Kāmrāj: see p. 476 infra.

(2)

Jang-nāmah i Muḥammad Muʿaẓẓam S̲h̲āh u Aʿẓam S̲h̲āh, by ʿAṭāʾ Allāh: Āṣafīyah i p. 236 no. 761 (defective at end).

(3)

Note on the struggle that followed the death of Aurangzēb: Ivanow Curzon 700 (19th cent.).

(4)

¶ Waqāʾiʿ i jang i Bahādur [Shāh] Shāh-ʿĀlam g̲h̲āzī u M. Aʿẓam S̲h̲āh g̲h̲āzī wa-g̲h̲airah S̲h̲āh-zādahā i wālā-tabār wāqiʿ ba-tārīk̲h̲ i yāzdahum i s̲h̲ahr i Rabīʿ al-T̲h̲ānī sanah i 1117 (? 1118) Hijrī Nabawīyah u panjāh u yak az julūs būd: Aberystwyth 9 (6).

§ 758. Mīrzā Nūr al-Dīn M. “ʿĀlī”, entitled successively Niʿmat K̲h̲ān, Muqarrab K̲h̲ān and Dānis̲h̲mand K̲h̲ān, who died in 1122/1710, has already been mentioned (pp. 462–465 supra) as the author of the Waqāʾiʿ i Ḥaidarābād and the Jang-nāmah.

(1)

Jang-nāmah, an account of Aurangzēb’s war against the Mahā-rāṇā of Udaipur and of the hostilities between Bahādur S̲h̲āh and M. Aʿẓam S̲h̲āh after his death: see p. 464 supra.

(2)

(Bahādur-S̲h̲āh-nāmah) or (Tārīk̲h̲ i S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam Bahādur-S̲h̲āh), the official detailed history of Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s first two years: Ethé 1659 i (abridged recension. Collated ah 1136/1723–4), 385 (not later than ah 1196/1782), 386 (an abridged recension, ah 1195/1781), 387 (the same abridged recension, ah 1217/1803), 1670 (abridged recension), Ross and Browne 10 (18th cent.), i.o. 3933, 3990 (ad 1897), Bodleian 256 (ah 1161/1748 ?), Lindesiana p. 204 no. 162 (circ. ad 1740–60), Rieu ii 745a (ah 1151/1738), i 272a (ah 1196/1782), iii 937b (ad 1849), 1028a (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Aumer 265 (ah 1198/1784), Browne Suppt. 189 (n.d.).

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii 568.

§ 759. Apparently in the reign of Jahāndār S̲h̲āh (ah 1124/1712) was written

A florid, but circumstantial, work, of which detached fragments (20 foll.) relating to the reigns of Bahādur S̲h̲āh and Jahāndār S̲h̲āh are preserved in Rieu Suppt. 79 (18th cent. Pictures).

§ 760. Mīrzā Mubārak Allāh “Wāḍiḥ” entitled Irādat K̲h̲ān (ʿĀlamgīrī) was the son of Mīr Isḥāq¹ entitled likewise Irādat K̲h̲ān (S̲h̲āh-Jahānī, d. 1068/1658 ¶ as Ṣūbahdār of Oudh) who was himself the son of Mīr M. Bāqir Sāwajī entitled first Irādat K̲h̲ān (Jahāngīrī) and afterwards Aʿẓam K̲h̲ān (see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i 174–80). He must have been born in 1059/1649 (since he was 67 in 1126/1714). In Aurangzēb’s 33rd year, ah 1100/1689, he was appointed Faujdār of C̲h̲āknah² and in the 40th year, ah 1108/1697, Faujdār of Aurangābād. It was in this year that he received the title of Irādat K̲h̲ān. In the 47th year, ah 1114/1703, he was Qalʿah-dār of Gulbargah, and subsequently he became Qalʿah-dār and Faujdār of Māndū. When Prince Bēdār-bak̲h̲t, the son of M. Aʿẓam, was appointed Governor of Mālwah, Irādat K̲h̲ān became one of his intimate friends. After Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s death Irādat K̲h̲ān espoused the cause of ʿAẓīm al-S̲h̲ān. During Jahāndār’s reign he remained in retirement. He died ah 1128/1716 in the reign of Farruk̲h̲-siyar (according to the Natāʾij al-afkār).

In poetry he was a pupil of M. Zamān “Rāsik̲h̲”³ (see the Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bānkīpūr viii pp. 93, 86)). He was the author of a mat̲h̲nawī entitled Āʾīnah i rāz (see Ethé 1674).

For copies of his dīwān, or of selections from it, see Ethé 1674–5, Ivanow 834, Sprenger 551, etc.

Tārīk̲h̲ i Irādat K̲h̲ān, completed ah 1126/1714, memoirs of the seven years from Aurangzēb’s death in 1118/1707 to Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s entry into Delhi in Muḥarram 1125/1713: Ethé 389 (earlier than ad 1804), 390 (“copied from the original in the Possession of the King of Delhi”), i.o. 3925 (ah 1304/1886), 4031 (foll. 4b–64a. Fragment only, rather more than half of the work), Ivanow Curzon 34 (early 19th cent.), Bānkīpūr vii 579 (19th cent.), Rieu iii 938a (circ. ad 1850), 9386 (circ. ad 1850), 1049b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850).

Urdu translation: Sawāniḥ-ʿumrī i Irādat K̲h̲ān by Ashraf S̲h̲amsī Ḥaidarābādī, Ḥaidarābād (date ?) (see Ḥaiderābād Coll. p. 23).

Abridged English translation: A translation of the Memoirs of Eradut Khan … By J. Scott, London 1786°*, and, as part iv of Ferishta’s History of Dekkan … By J. Scott, Shrewsbury 1794°* (unsold copies printed in 1786 being simply bound in).

Description and 28 pp. of translated extracts (from Scott’s translation): Elliot and Dowson History of India vii 534–64.

¶ [Mirʾāt al-k̲h̲ayāl pp. 307–8 (Bodl. 374 no. 112); Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 130); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bānkīpūr viii p. 93); Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i 204 ult.-205¹¹; Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; Sarw i Āzād; “Sirāj” Dīwān i muntak̲h̲ab (Sprenger p. 151); Maqālāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 160); Tad̲h̲kirat al-umarāʾ; Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 2990; Sprenger pp. 130, 160, 583; Rieu i 938.]

§ 761. Nūr al-Din b. Burhān al-Dīn Fārūqī was descended from a Balk̲h̲ī who accompanied Bābur to India, fought at Karnāl and settled at Multān. On Aurangzēb’s death, when Bahādur S̲h̲āh instructed his son Muʿizz al-Dīn, then Governor of Multān, to collect an army, Burhān al-Dīn Fārūqī joined the army and took his son with him. Shortly after Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s death (20 Muḥarram 1124) Nūr al-Dīn Fārūqī was present at the storming of ʿAẓīm al-s̲h̲aʾn’s entrenchment. He complains that although he had worked hard between the death of Bahādur S̲h̲āh and that of Rafīʿ al-s̲h̲aʾn, he received no promotion. When Jahāndār S̲h̲āh advanced from Delhi to Āgrah to meet Farruk̲h̲-siyar, Nūr al-Dīn and his father at the head of 600 horsemen were posted in the advanced guard. They were forced to give way, and took refuge with ʿAbd al-Ṣamad K̲h̲ān’s troops. In Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s reign Burhān al-Dīn Fārūqī remained for some time in the service of ʿAbd al-Ṣamad K̲h̲ān. He then took part in Nawwāb Ḥusain ʿAlī K̲h̲ān’s expedition against Ajīt Sing’h, but when the army set out on the return march from Rajputana to Delhi, he parted company with them and returned home to Multān. Nūr al-Dīn Fārūqī then settled in the Maḥallah Fārūqi-yān in Old Delhi. When S. ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān sent ʿAbd al-Ṣamad K̲h̲ān to be Ṣūbadār of Lahore and to quell the insurrection of Gōbind Sing’h, Nūr al-Dīn Fārūqī took the opportunity of revisiting his home after eleven years and accompanied the army to the Panjāb. His father was ill in bed when he arrived and died a month later on the 20th of Rabīʿ ii [ah 1227 apparently]. Unwilling to remain in Multān on account of the oppression of the Sik’hs, Nūr al-Dīn returned to Delhi, which he found in a disturbed state owing to the hostility between Farruk̲h̲-siyar and S. ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān. After enduring troubles of various kinds for five months he visited the shrine of the Sulṭān al-Mas̲h̲āyik̲h̲ [i.e. Niẓām al-Dīn Auliyāʾ, for whom see Ency. Isl. under Niẓām al-Dīn] and, invoking his help, started to write his account of the occurrences in which he had taken part. Already in the time of Bahādur S̲h̲āh he had witnessed the official recording of events, and, feeling a strong desire to write history, he had composed a Jang-nāmah. Dissatisfied with it, however, he had destroyed it. When Yūsuf K̲h̲ān was instructed to record the events of Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s time, Nūr al-Dīn Fārūqī was often in his presence and took much interest in his writing. Yūsuf K̲h̲ān, however, told him that historiography was better avoided, since it produced only Dead Sea fruit.

¶ Jahāndār-nāmah, an account of the struggle between Jahāndār S̲h̲āh [Muʿizz al-Dīn, the eldest son of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam Bahādur S̲h̲āh. See Ency. Isl. under Djahāndār S̲h̲āh] and his three brothers after their father’s death, his brief reign in the year 1124/1712, his defeat by his nephew Farruk̲h̲-siyar and his death, completed in D̲h̲ū ’l-Qaʿdah 1127/1715: i.o. 3988 (probably ad 1892).

§ 762. It was at the request of the Quṭb al-aqṭāb S̲h̲āh S̲h̲ukr Allāh that S̲h̲. M. Munʿim Jaʿfarābādī wrote his

Farruk̲h̲-nāmah, a history of the years 1124/1712 and 1125/1713 in eighteen dāstāns dealing with the struggles of Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s sons until the accession of Farruk̲h̲-siyar: Ethé 388 (ah 1128/1716).

§ 763. K̲h̲wājah M. K̲h̲alīl played an active part in the military events of the period which followed Aurangzēb’s death. He displays a strong bias in favour of the Saiyids, Ḥusain ʿAlī K̲h̲ān and ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān.

(Tārīk̲h̲ i S̲h̲āhans̲h̲āhī),⁴ a history of the events following Aurangzēb’s death to the beginning of Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s reign: Būhār 79 (18th cent.).

§ 764. Mīr M. Aḥsan “Ījād” served for a time in Gujrāt with the army of Prince M. Aʿẓam and while there made the acquaintance of the poet Mīrzā “Bēdil” and the Naqs̲h̲bandī saint S̲h̲āh Guls̲h̲an [for the latter of whom see Bānkīpūr viii p. 98], Subsequently he became Faujdār of Etawah. In Bahādur S̲h̲āh’s reign he entered the service of the Nawwāb Niẓām al-Mulk and through him obtained a manṣab of 300 under Prince ʿAẓīm al-S̲h̲ān. In Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s reign he was appointed to write a court chronicle. According to the Dīwān i muntak̲h̲ab he died in 1133/1720–1 (according to the Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār in 1131/1718–19 or soon after).

(1)

Farruk̲h̲siyar-nāmah, a prolix and pompous history of Farruk̲h̲siyar’s minority and the early years of his reign (to ah 1125/1713): Rieu i 273a (18th cent.), i.o. 3958 foll. 167–210 (extracts only. Late 18th cent.), Aumer 265 (2) (the first four of the same extracts = i.o. 3958 foll. 167b–193b. Called in the colophon Tatimmah i Bahādur-S̲h̲āh-nāmah. ah 1198/1784), perhaps also Eton 193, which is described as a Farruk̲h̲siyar-nāmah but of which the author’s name is not mentioned in the catalogue, and Āṣafiyah iii p. 96 no. 1492 (Tārīk̲h̲ i Farruk̲h̲-siyarī. Author not stated. Damaged, ah 1247/1831–2).

(2)

¶ Tārīk̲h̲ i futūḥāt i Āṣafī, manẓūm (S̲h̲āh-nāmah i Dakan), a poem on the events of forty years in India and the conquests of Āṣaf-Jāh: Āṣafīyah iii p. 96 no. 1493 (defective at both ends. ah 1133/1720–1).

[Sark̲h̲wus̲h̲, Kalimāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 117); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (cf. Bānkīpūr viii p. 95); Dīwān i muntak̲h̲ab (Sprenger p. 149); K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār (Bodl. 391 no. 318); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 210; Rieu i 273a.]

§ 765. An author who was serving as Nāʾib under ʿĀrif Bēg K̲h̲ān, Governor of Lahore, at the time of ʿAbd al-Ṣamad K̲h̲ān’s expedition against the Sik’hs wrote in Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s reign

An account of Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s accession and of ʿAbd al-Ṣamad K̲h̲ān’s expedition against the Sik’hs (which ended with the capture and execution of Bandā in 1126), being, according to Rieu, a fragment of a larger chronicle: Rieu ii 860b (19th cent.).

§ 766. An author at present unidentified wrote

Naẓm al-mulūk, a mat̲h̲nawī giving a history of India from the accession of Aurangzēb to the reign of Farruk̲h̲-siyar and concluding with a record of the honours conferred upon ʿAbd al-Ṣamad K̲h̲ān, who is called Saif al-Daulah, a title bestowed upon him in 1127 as a reward for his victory over the Sik’hs and who died as Ṣūbah-dār of Multān in 1150: Rieu iii 1056b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850).

§ 767. The following is catalogued under the heading Musawwadāt:

A detailed history of Delhi, particulars of the Emperor’s movements, lists of manṣabs, etc. from the time of Aurangzēb to that of Farruk̲h̲-siyar, with a summary account of preceding reigns: Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii no. 4 (Aug. 1926) p. 58 no. 70).

§ 768. Other works relating to Farruk̲h̲-siyar:

(1)

Brief account of Farruk̲h̲-siyar (beg.: Farruk̲h̲-siyar bād-S̲h̲āh s̲h̲udah): Browne Pers. Cat. 76, i.o. 3955.

(2)

Farruk̲h̲siyar-nāmah: Eton 193 (author not stated).

(3)

Tārīk̲h̲ i Farruk̲h̲siyarī: Āṣafīyah iii p. 96 no. 1492 (author not stated. Damaged, ah 1247/1831–2).

§ 769. Mirzā M. b. Muʿtamad K̲h̲ān (Rustam), who was born in 1098/1687, has already been mentioned (p. 110 supra) as the author of the Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammadī begun in 1124/1712–13.

¶ (ʿIbrat-nāmah⁵), memoirs of the author from 1117/1705–6, the year before Aurangzēb’s death to the accession of Rafīʿ al-Darajāt in 1131/1719: Bānkīpūr vii 623 (early 19th cent. Full analysis), Ethé 392, 2834, i.o. 3741 (early 19th cent.), 4031 (defective. 19th cent.), Ivanow Curzon 699 (begins with ah 1118. 19th cent.).

The statement made by Ethé (and, presumably on his authority, by ʿAbd al-Muqtadir) that “These memoirs were translated by Captain Jonathan Scott 1786” is apparently due to a confusion of the ʿIbrat-nāmah with the Tārīk̲h̲ i Irādat K̲h̲ān (for which see p. 472 supra).

§ 770. Kāmrāj son of Nain-Sing’h b. Bindrāban, a Saksēnah Kāyast’h and a resident of Phaphund (a town 36 m. E. of Etawah in the u.p.), calls himself a born servant of M. Aʿẓam S̲h̲āh, and says that his ancestors for three generations had been in the Imperial service. His father, Nain-Sing’h, accompanied M. Aʿẓam to Mālwah in 1118/1706–7 as pīs̲h̲-dast in the Imperial artillery.

(1)

Aʿẓam al-ḥarb, a detailed account of Aʿẓam S̲h̲āh’s brief reign (10 D̲h̲ū ’l-Ḥijjah 1118/15 March 1707–18 Rabīʿ i 1119/19 June 1708): Rieu iii 937a (circ. ad 1850. Copied from an autograph in the Mōtī Maḥall, Lucknow), iii 1053 (extracts only. From an autograph. Circ. ad 1850).

(2)

ʿIbrat-nāmah, a history of India from ah 1118/1707 onwards: Ethé 391 (Daftar i (or parts of it) extending to the accession of M. S̲h̲āh ah 1131/1719. Copied ah 1183/1769).

§ 771. In Aurangzēb’s reign Zōrāwar Sing’h lived with his father and mother at Ḥaidarābād. At the time when he wrote his mat̲h̲nawī he must have been a wealthy man, since there were not less than two hundred women in his house.

An account in verse of the downfall and death of Ḥusain ʿAlī Khān and the appointment of M. Amīn K̲h̲ān (Iʿtimād al-Daulah) to succeed him as Wazīr: Blochet iii 1927 (ornate ms. Circ. ad 1721).

§ 772. A certain “Rāmī” wrote

Majmūʿah i tārīk̲h̲ i S̲h̲āhans̲h̲āhān, a concise history from Aurangzēb’s death to the fall of the Saiyids: Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (ah 1226/1812. See Oriental College Magazine vol. ii no. 4 (Aug. 1926) p. 55).

¶ § 773. S. M. Qāsim “ʿIbrat” Ḥusainī Lāhaurī left Lahore, his native place, in 1130/1718 to seek employment at Delhi. He there entered the service of the Amīr al-umarāʾ S. Ḥusain ʿAlī K̲h̲ān.

ʿIbrat-nāmah,⁶ written in 1135/1722–3, a history of the Tīmūrids from the death of Aurangzēb to the fall of the Saiyids in 1133/1721: Rieu i 231b (cf. Rieu’s Additions and corrections, p. 1082b ad 231b. Lacks preface. Merges towards the end into the anonymous “Ṣaḥīfah i iqbāl” (see p. 478 infra). Late 18th cent.), 273b (a somewhat abridged recension, beginning … t̲h̲anāy [sic] K̲h̲udāwand i kārsāz i ḥaqīqī rā. Late 18th cent.), iii 939a (19th cent.), 939b (18th cent.), 940a (ad 1847), 1008a (merging towards the end into the “Ṣaḥīfah i iqbāl” (see p. 478 infra). ah 1230/1815), r.a.s. 109 = Morley 104 (ah 1202/1787), Ethé 393 (beginning: Ḥamd i bī-ʿadd u t̲h̲anāy [sic] k̲h̲udāwand i kārsāz i ḥaqīqī rā. Cf. Rieu 273b. N.d.), i.o. 3934b (merging into the “Ṣaḥīfah i iqbāl” (see p. 476 infra). ad 1874), 4045 (ad 1895), Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (defective at end. See Oriental College Magazine vol. ii no. 4 (Lahore, Aug. 1926) p. 55), probably also Eton 194 (“Farrukhsiyar-nāmah”, by “Sayyid Ḳāsim”. ah 1156).

Description and 2 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India vii pp. 569–73.

[Autobiographical statements (see Rieu i 273).]

§ 774. S̲h̲īv-Dās Lak’hnawī was for long a muns̲h̲ī “in the service of the great”.

S̲h̲āh-nāmah i munawwar-kalām, detached historical narratives and court news (with many official letters and farmāns) relating to the reign of Farruk̲h̲-siyar and the first four years of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh: Rieu i 274a (18th cent.), iii 938b (ah 1211/1797), 1049b vi (extract only. Circ. ad 1850), Blochet i 604 (end of 18th cent.), Ivanow Curzon 35 (ah 1209/1794), Eton 192.

English translation by Lieut. Iltudus T. Prichard: b.m. ms. Add. 30,785.

Descriptions: (1) Elliot and Dowson History of India viii p. 331 (“The work contains a good deal of biography and anecdote”), (2) The contemporary view of the court of Farrukh Syer [sic], by A.M. Daula (in Journal of Indian history xv/2 (Madras, August 1936) pp. 201–9).

¶ § 775. Mīr M. Riḍā “Riḍā” D̲h̲ū ’l-Faqār was a Saiyid of Safīdūn (a village now in the State of Jīnd). He took part in an expedition under the command of S̲h̲araf al-Daulah Irādatmand K̲h̲ān against Rājah Ajīt Sing’h, Ṣūbah-dār of Ajmēr, who rebelled in the fifth year of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s reign (ah 1135/1723. See Elliot and Dowson viii pp. 43–4). At the time when he wrote his poem in the hope that the Emperor’s liberality would relieve his urgent need he held a command (? manṣab) of 500 men.

S̲h̲araf-nāmah i Muḥammad S̲h̲ah, a mat̲h̲nawī on the history of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s immediate predecessors (Bahādur S̲h̲āh etc.) and the early part of his reign (apparently to the fifth year): Rieu iii 1002 (18th cent.), 1054b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850).

§ 776. An anonymous author who had access to the court of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh wrote

(Muḥammad-S̲h̲āh-nāmah) or (Ṣaḥīfah i iqbāl⁷), detached chapters relating to the fall of the Saiyids and the first fourteen years of M. S̲h̲āh’s reign “taken from a full history which the author had not yet thought it advisable to publish” (beginning: Biyā sāqī ai luʿbat i sīnah-ṣāf): Rieu iii 940a (18th cent.), 1008a (shorn of preamble and written in continuation of a passage towards the end of S.M. Qāsim’s ʿIbrat-nāmah (see p. 477 supra). ah 1230/1815), 1015b (ad 1850–1), 1055b viii (short extract only), i 231b (shorn of preamble and written in continuation of a passage towards the end of S.M. Qāsim’s ‘Ibrat-nāmah (see p. 477 supra). Cf. Rieu’s Additions and corrections p. 1082b ad 231b. Late 18th cent.), Suppt. 80 (with two additional chapters at the beginning. M. S̲h̲āh’s correspondence with Persia given more fully than in Rieu 940a. 18th cent.), i.o. 3934c (i.e. foll. 213a, 1. 4–264b, 1. 16. ah 1290/1873).

§ 777. M. Qāsim, who is to be distinguished from S.M. Qāsim “ʿIbrat” Lāhaurī, the author of the ʿIbrat-nāmah (see p. 477 infra), was for a time with S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam’s sons in Bihār. Subsequently he became Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī in the army of Niẓām al-Mulk. He served under his schoolmate, S. Las̲h̲kar K̲h̲ān, in the operations against the Marāṭ’hā Sōmnā, brother of Appā Rāō. He seems to have been an intimate ¶ friend of Mutawassil K̲h̲ān (d. 1156/1743–4, see Rieu iii 1084a), Niẓām al-Mulk’s son-in-law, the Faujdār of Baglānah.

Aḥwāl al-k̲h̲awāqīn, a history of Aurangzēb’s successors to ah 1151/1738–9, the date of completion, divided into two parts ((1) from Aurangzēb’s death to Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s deposition, (2) from the accession of Rafīʿ al-Darajāt, this part being devoted mainly to Niẓām al-Mulk’s conflict with the Saiyids and his wars with the Marāṭ’hās): Rieu i 276b (18th cent.).

§ 778. S̲h̲. M. Murād b. S̲h̲. S̲h̲ihāb al-Dīn b. S̲h̲. S̲h̲ams al-Dīn b. S̲h̲. Sirāj al-Dīn b. Quṭb al-aqṭāb S̲h̲. M. C̲h̲is̲h̲tī⁸ is described by James Fraser,⁹ who studied under him at Cambay and who mentions him in the preface to his History of Nādir S̲h̲āh, as a man famous in those parts for his knowledge of the Muhammadan civil and ecclesiastical laws.

A history of Aurangzēb and his successors to the twenty-first year of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s reign ah 1151/1738 compiled at the request of James Fraser: Bodleian 262 (probably autograph).

§ 779. M. S̲h̲afīʿ “Wārid” b. S.M. S̲h̲arīf was born ah 1087/1676–7 when his father, who had left Ṭihrān and entered first the service of ʿAbd Allāh Quṭb-S̲h̲āh and subsequently that of Prince S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam (Bahādur S̲h̲āh), was governor of Nagīnah.

After his father’s death in 1117/1705–6 he served under Prince M. ʿAẓīm, but soon retired and, supported by the patronage of Bairām K̲h̲ān¹⁰ (Mīrzā Bāqir afterwards Bāqir K̲h̲ān), the son of Aurangzēb’s general Rūḥ-Allāh K̲h̲ān, devoted himself to literature.

He was the author of a dīwān and four mat̲h̲nawīs, viz. the Gulistān i nairang, the Mirʾāt i farruk̲h̲ī, the C̲h̲aman i dīdār, and a sāqī-nāmah.

(1)

Mirʾāt i wāridāt, a stilted history of the Indian Tīmūrids to M. S̲h̲āh’s 16th regnal year, ah 1146/1733–4, the date of completion, followed by an account of the battle between Mubāriz al-Mulk Sarbuland K̲h̲ān and ¶ Mahārājah Abhai Singh at Aḥmadābād in 1141/1728–9:¹¹ Rieu i 275b (late 18th cent.), Bodleian 424 (apparently the fourth ṭabaqah, completed ah 1142/1730 and consisting of (1) a geographical and historical account of certain countries, (2) a short memoir on contemporary Indian history, defective at the beginning, (3) biographies of Indian poets and authors. Lacunæ. N.d.), Bānkīpūr vii 580 (part relating to M. S̲h̲āh’s reign. ad 1811), i.o. 3881¹² (M. S̲h̲āh’s reign. Probably ad 1885. Transcribed from the Bānkīpūr ms.).

(2)

Tārīk̲h̲ i C̲h̲ag̲h̲atāy, apparently a later recension of the preceding work, the preface after a different exordium (which begins Jahān jahān sitāyis̲h̲) agreeing with that of the Mirʾāt i wāridāt except that the title Tārīk̲h̲ i C̲h̲ag̲h̲atāy is substituted, the latter part of the history being more concise and brought down to Nādir S̲h̲āh’s departure from India in 1152/1739: Rieu iii 924b (ah 1217/1802), 925a (transcribed from the preceding ad 1852), 1050b (extracts. Circ. ad 1850).

Description and 3 pp. of translated extracts (relating to M. S̲h̲āh’s interviews with Nādir S̲h̲āh): Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 21–24.

[Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (cf. Bānkīpūr viii p. 111); Ṣuḥuf i Ibrāhīm, wāw, no. 78.]

§ 780. Ānand Rām “Muk̲h̲liṣ”, son of Rājah Hirdē Rām, Kʾhatrī Lāhaurī,¹³ is described by “S̲h̲afīq” (Gul i raʿnā, Bānkīpūr viii p. 132) as the most eminent of all the Hindu poets [sc. who wrote in Persian]. He was a pupil of “Bēdil” and a friend of “Ārzū”. In 1132/1719–20 he was appointed Wakīl¹⁴ for Nawwāb Iʿtimād al-Daulah Qamar al-Dīn K̲h̲ān (Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s Wazīr). He was also Wakīl for ʿAbd al-Ṣamad K̲h̲ān, Nāẓim of the ṣūbah of Lahore and Multān, and had the title of Rāy-Rāyān. He died at Delhi in 1164/1751.

In addition to his Dīwān (for which see Ethé 1707, Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 194 (Rāmpūr)) he is the author of (1) Ruqaʿāt i Muk̲h̲liṣ, a collection of his own letters redacted in 1149/1736–7 (mss. Panjab Univ. Lib. (see Or. Coll. Mag. vi ¶ no. 4 (Aug. 1930) p. 99), Bānkīpūr ix 882 i [?], i.o. 3981), (2) Mirʾāt al-iṣtilāḥ, a dictionary of poetical phrases and proverbial sentences¹⁵ completed in 1157/1744 (mss. Rieu iii 997, Bānkīpūr ix 810), (3) Parī-k̲h̲ānah, an introduction written in 1144/1731–2 to an album of calligraphic specimens and drawings (mss. Bānkīpūr ix 882 ii, Ivanow Curzon 156), (4) a long letter written by order of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh to a Ṣafawid king on the latter’s accession to the throne (mss. Bānkīpūr ix 882 iii, Ivanow Curzon 156, i.o. d.p. 491 (e)), (5) C̲h̲amanistān written in 1159/1746, a collection of anecdotes, accounts of some contemporaries, descriptions of trees, flowers and fruits, admonitions, witty sayings etc. (Edition: Lucknow 1877°*. mss. Bānkīpūr ix 882 iv, Ivanow Curzon 156 [?]), (6) Hangāmah i ʿis̲h̲q, written in 1152/1739–40, the love-story of Kunwar Sundar Sēn, of the Karnātak, and Rānī c̲h̲and Parbhā (ms. Bānkīpūr ix 882 v), (7) Kār-nāmah i ʿis̲h̲q, written in 1144/1731–2, the love-story of Prince Gauhar of China and Princess Mamlakat (mss. i.o. Johnson Album 38 (beautifully illustrated), Bānkīpūr ix 882 vi), (8) Intik̲h̲āb i Tuḥfah i Sāmī, an abridgment of Sām Mīrzā’s tad̲h̲kirah (ms. i.o. d.p. 718).

(9)

Tad̲h̲kirah i Ānand-Rām “Muk̲h̲liṣ”, a history of the war of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh with Nādir S̲h̲āh: ʿAlīgaṛh (see Irvine Later Mughals ii p. 380).

Description and 22 pp. of translated extracts:¹⁶ Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 76–98 (from a ms. belonging to Nawwāb Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn).

(10)

Account of a journey from Delhi to Muktēsar in 1150/1737: Ethé 2724, Rāmpūr (see Nad̲h̲īr Aḥmad 61).

English translation: Garh Muktesar Fair in 1747; or, A thirteen days’ trip. Translated by William Irvine (in The Indian Magazine and Review, 1903 pp. 66–71, 102–6, 116–21, 151–6, 169–72).

[Hamīs̲h̲ah bahār (Sprenger p. 129); Safīnah i K̲h̲wus̲h̲gū (Bānkīpūr viii p. 113); Muntak̲h̲ab al-as̲h̲ʿār (Bodl. 379) no. 656; Riyāḍ al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ; Majmaʿ al-nafāʾis; Nikāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (cf. Sprenger p. 262); Maqālāt al-s̲h̲uʿarāʾ (Sprenger p. 159); K̲h̲izānah i ʿāmirah pp. 425–6 (Bodl. 381 no. 115); Jām i jahān-numā by Mahārat K̲h̲ān; Gul i raʿnā (Bānkīpūr viii p. 132); ʿIqd i T̲h̲uraiyā (Bānkīpūr viii no. 709 fol. 60a); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 2683; Safīnah i Hindī (Bānkīpūr viii no. 715 fol. 77b); Nis̲h̲tar i ʿis̲h̲q (one of the sources used by S.M. ʿAbd Allāh in his article mentioned below); Natāʾij al-afkār; Garcin de Tassy ii p. 376; Niẓāmī Badāyūnī. Qāmūs al-mas̲h̲āhīr (in Urdu) ii p. 207; Anand Rām “Muk̲h̲liṣ” (an Urdu article ¶ by S.M. ʿAbd Allāh in the Oriental College Magazine v no. 2 (Lahore, Feb. 1929) pp. 46–66).]

§ 781. In the 22nd year of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh, ah 1153/1740–1, was composed

A sketch (51 foll.) of the first 22 years of M. S̲h̲āh’s reign especially Nādir S̲h̲āh’s campaign in India and the doings of Niẓām al-Mulk Āṣaf-Jāh (beg.: Dar bayān i ṭalab i Niẓām al-Mulk? … c̲h̲ūn dar muhimmāt i salṭanat k̲h̲idīw i qadar-qudrat …): Blochet i 612 (latter half of 18th cent.).

§ 782. It was in 1153/1740–1 at the request of S̲h̲aik̲h̲ ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, an old associate of the Amīr al-umarāʾ (K̲h̲wājah M. ʿĀṣim) Ṣamṣām al-Daulah K̲h̲ān i Daurān (the commander defeated by Nādir S̲h̲āh at Karnāl), that M. Muḥsin b. al-Ḥanīf Ṣiddīqī, a native of Bijnaur, wrote his

Jauhar i ṣamṣām, a wordy and hyperbolic account of Nādir S̲h̲ah’s invasion, based on information received from S̲h̲. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, with a brief history of Aurangzēb’s successors: Browne Suppt. 364 (King’s 132), Ivanow 2nd Suppt. 929 (ah 1224/1809), Rieu iii 941 (circ. ad 1850).

Abridged translation by Major A.R. Fuller: b.m. ms. Add. 30,724, foll. 1–80.

Description and 3 pp. of extracts from Fuller’s translation: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 72–5.

§ 783. An anonymous dependent of Ṣamṣām al-Daulah K̲h̲ān i Daurān wrote

(Risālah i Muḥammad S̲h̲ah u K̲h̲ān i Daurān), a turgid, fulsome and historically unimportant account of the life and times of Ṣāmṣām al-Daulah K̲h̲ān i Daurān (K̲h̲wājah M. ʿĀṣim, who was a trusted official with a command of 7,000 in Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s reign, was appointed Amīr al-umarāʾ by Muḥammad S̲h̲āh after the fall of the Saiyids and in 1151/1739 was in command against Nādir S̲h̲āh at Karnāl, where he received a fatal wound. See Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ i 819–23): Browne Suppt. 675 (ah 1199/1784–5), Rieu i 277b (ah 1202/1788), iii 941a (ah 1262/1846).

§ 784. S̲h̲. M. ʿAlī “Ḥazīn” Lāhijī Jīlānī was born at Iṣfahān in 1103/1692 and died at Benares in 1180/1766 (for further information see the section Biography: Poets).

(1)

(Tad̲h̲kirat al-aḥwāl), an autobiography written in 1154/1741 and containing a good deal of historical information about the Afg̲h̲ān invasion of Persia and Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion of India (for mss. and editions see the section Biography: Poets).

(2)

¶ Wāqiʿāt i Īrān u Hind, on events in Persia and India from 1134/1722 to 1154/1741, beginning al-Ḥamdu li-walīyihi (probably the same as no. (1)): Ethé 1714 (ah 1183/1769).

(3)

A short note on the Persian invasions of India, completed at Ḥusainābād in 1180 and beginning Muwāfiq i siyar i muʿtabarah dafaʿātī kih las̲h̲kar i Īrān ba-Sind u Hind dar āmadah: Berlin p. 54 no. 11, Ivanow 1749, Bānkīpūr Suppt. ii 2240 (19th cent.).

§ 785. A Persian who went to India and entered the service of Ṣafdar-Jang wrote

(1)

A poem on Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion: Blochet iii 1931 (defective at end. Mid-18th cent.).

(2)

A poem on Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s operations against the Marāṭhās or Rōhēlahs or both¹⁷ after Nādir S̲h̲āh’s departure from India: Blochet iii 1931 (mid-18th cent.).

(3)

Fatḥ-nāmah i Ṣafdarī, completed in 1155/1742, a poem on the operations of Saʿādat K̲h̲ān and Ṣafdar-Jang against the Marāṭhās: Blochet iii 1931 (mid-18th cent.).

(4)

A poem on Ṣafdar-Jang’s return from the war against the Marāṭhās and on Muḥammad S̲h̲āh’s operations against Rājah Nawal: Blochet iii 1931 (mid-18th cent.).

§ 786. Mīrzā Muḥammad-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ “Ās̲h̲ōb” b. M. G̲h̲iyāt̲h̲ was born at Delhi in S̲h̲aʿbān 1128/1716, the fourth year of Farruk̲h̲-siyar’s reign. After his father’s death he was brought up by his maternal uncle Mīrzā M. b. Rustam (for whom see pp. 110 and 476 supra) and his grandfather ʿInāyat Allāh Bēg entitled Qaswar K̲h̲ān. He entered the service of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh and remained in it until Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion (ah 1151/1738). Then for some years he served the Wazīr Iʿtimād al-Daulah Qamar al-Dīn K̲h̲ān (killed ah 1161/1748 at the Battle of Sirhind) and his sons the Khān i K̲h̲ānān Intiẓām al-Daulah (d. 1167/1753–4) and Muʿīn al-Mulk, distinguishing himself in the operations against Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Abdālī and in the contest of the K̲h̲ān i K̲h̲ānān against Ṣafdar-Jang. Then for fifteen years he served the Wazīr ʿImād al-Mulk G̲h̲āzī al-Dīn K̲h̲ān as Mīr Muns̲h̲ī and in other capacities. Serious ill-health having caused him to sever his connexion with ʿImād al-Mulk he lived successively at Farruk̲h̲ābād, where ¶ he was ill for a year, and for some troubled years at Lucknow, Fyzabad and Allahabad. Then Āṣaf al-Daulah invited him to enter his service and leaving Farruk̲h̲ābād for Lucknow and Fyzabad he enjoyed prosperity for five or six years. Subsequently he was for a short time in the service of Richard Johnson (for whom he copied the i.o. ms. Ethé 224 in 1194/1780) and in 1196/1782 at the invitation of Jonathan Scott, whom he had met at Colonel Polier’s house at Lucknow, he went to Allahabad in order to write his history of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh. According to the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār he died in poverty at Lucknow in 1199/1784–5.

He wrote a considerable amount of poetry, including (1) Ṣaulat i Fārūqī or Futūḥ al-Islām fī bilād al-Rūm wa-’l-S̲h̲ām, a mat̲h̲nawī based on the Pseudo-Wāqidī and planned to consist of three volumes but probably never continued beyond the second,¹⁸ which was completed in 1160/1747¹⁹ (mss.: i.o. 3940 (vol. i of the Kullīyāt), Lindesiana p. 192 no. 783, Bānkīpūr Suppt. i no. 1801 (vol. i only) and doubtless also Bānkīpūr iii no. 420 (Kullīyāt i Ās̲h̲ōb, much disarranged). Edition: Aʿẓamgarh 1252/1836–7 (see Qāmūs al-aʿlām i col. 45).

(2)

A dīwān, for which see Sprenger p. 342 no. 115, Bānkīpūr iii no. 420 (Kullīyāt), Browne Suppt. 499.

(3)

Kār-nāmah, a mat̲h̲nawī on the war against Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Abdālī, which terminated in 1162/1749: Ivanow Curzon 302.

(4)

Falak-ās̲h̲ūb, written at Bharatpūr, a historical compendium in 700 distichs ending with the death of Ḥāfiẓ Raḥmat K̲h̲ān (ah 1188/1774): Eton 142.

(5)

(Sawāniḥ i aḥwāl i Ās̲h̲ōb),²⁰ a short and almost dateless autobiography written towards the end of his life: i.o. 3940 foll. 1–9a (early 19th cent.), 4034 (ad 1888), 3938 (ad 1892).

(6)

Tārīk̲h̲ i s̲h̲ahādat i Farruk̲h̲-siyar u julūs i Muḥammad S̲h̲āh, written in 1196/1782, a valuable but chronologically unprecise account of the life and reign of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh, apparently intended to come down to the date of composition but probably never finished, since the b.m. and i.o. copies end with the death of Nādir S̲h̲āh, ah 1160/1747: Rieu iii 944a (ah 1199/1785), 1051b (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Ethé 422 (ah 1200/1786), Browne Suppt. 239 (King’s 94).

¶ Description and a translated extract (1 p.): Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 232–4.

[Autobiography (see above); Tārīk̲h̲ i s̲h̲ahādat i Farruk̲h̲-siyar, preface and elsewhere; K̲h̲ulāṣat al-afkār (Bodl. 391 no. 479); Mak̲h̲zan al-g̲h̲arāʾib no. 153 (?); Beale Oriental biographical dictionary; Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 232; Rieu iii 944; Bānkīpūr iii p. 247; S. S̲h̲ams Allāh Qādirī Qāmūs al-aʿlām (in Urdu) i (Ḥaidarābād 1935) coll. 44–5.]

§ 787. For further information concerning works dealing with Nādir S̲h̲āh and his invasion of India see pp. 252–258 supra. In addition the following works and fragments may be mentioned:

(1)

A criticism of the actions of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh and his Amīrs, especially K̲h̲ān i Daurān, at the time of Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion, beginning Kaifīyat i salṭanat i mulk i Hindūstān: Ivanow Curzon 36 (ah 1241/1826).

(2)

Fragment relating to Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion: Rieu iii 1050b (circ. ad 1850).

(3)

Ḥālāt i Nādir S̲h̲āh, a very short (9 foll.) account of Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion in Persian prose interspersed with Hindī verses, written in Samwat 1795 [ad 1738] by Amar, a resident of C̲h̲andēṛī: i.o. 4008 (probably ad 1896).

(4)

Tārīk̲h̲ i ḥamlah i Nādirī, apparently an extract from some history: Āṣafīyah i p. 224 no. 544.

§ 788. S̲h̲. Ḥusām Allāh wrote in 1161/1746

Fatḥ-nāmah, a mat̲h̲nawī on Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Abdālīs [first] invasion:²¹ Blochet iii 1934 (late 18th cent.).

§ 789. It was for Muʿīn al-Mulk²² that G̲h̲ulām-Muḥyī ’l-Dīn K̲h̲ān²³ wrote his

Ẓafar-nāmah, an account of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Durrānī’s [first?] invasion: Lahore Panjāb Univ. Lib. (see Oriental College Magazine, vol. ii, no. 4 (Lahore, August 1926), p. 56).

§ 790. Other works relating to Muḥammad S̲h̲āh:

(1)

Concise history of Hindūstān from the birth of Aurangzēb to the time of M. S̲h̲āh: r.a.s. P. 345 (1) = Morley 100.

(2)

Diary of events in the last few years of M. S̲h̲āh’s reign from 18 D̲h̲ū ’l-Qaʿdah 1159/2 December 1746 to 11 Jumādā ii 1161/8 June 1748, by an ¶ anonymous eye-witness (beg.: c̲h̲ūn az būqalamūn-hā i rūzgār): Ethé 410 (perhaps incomplete. Autograph?).

(3)

Extract relating to M. S̲h̲āh’s reign, especially the inroads of the Marāṭ’hās and Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion, the last date mentioned being ah 1157, the twenty-fifth regnal year (beginning D̲h̲ikr i tak̲h̲allul dar ṣūbajāt i mamālik i maḥrūsah): Rieu iii 1008b iii (ah 1230/1815), i.o. 3934d (i.e. foll. 264b–272b. ah 1290/1873).

(4)

Istīṣāl i Sādāt i Bārhah, a long letter describing the downfall of the Saiyids Ḥusain ʿAlī K̲h̲ān and ʿAbd Allāh K̲h̲ān said to have been written by order of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh in answer to a letter from “Ṭahmāsp Mīrzā, Ruler of Īrān”, i.e. S̲h̲āh Ṭahmāsp ii (ah 1135/1722–1144/1731), with a preface in which Munawwar ʿAlī K̲h̲ān says that he obtained the disarranged sheets of the letter from the library of “the late Sirāj al-Dīn ʿAlī K̲h̲ān Ārzū” [who died in 1169/1756. See Rieu ii 501–2, etc.] and, having arranged them in proper order, gave it the title mentioned above: i.o. 4002 (ad 1894?).

(5)

Lists of Wakīls (or Wazīrs), Dīwāns, Mīr Bak̲h̲s̲h̲īs etc. from the reign of Akbar to that of M. S̲h̲āh: Rieu iii 926a (19th cent.).

(6)

Muḥammad-S̲h̲āh-nāmah: Eton 195 (author not stated in the catalogue).

(7)

Nādir al-zamānī, or Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammad-S̲h̲āhī, by K̲h̲wush-ḥāl C̲h̲and: see p. 106 supra.

(8)

Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammad-S̲h̲āhī, by G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain b. Hidāyat ʿAlī K̲h̲ān:²⁴ Āṣafīyah i p. 230 nos. 512 (ah 1210/1795–6), 759 (ah 1231/1816).

(9)

Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammad-S̲h̲āhī, or Nādir al-zamānī, by K̲h̲wus̲h̲-ḥāl C̲h̲and: see p. 106 supra.

§ 791. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥasan “T̲h̲amīn” Ṣiddīqī Fars̲h̲ūrī Bilgrāmī was for some years associated with S.M. Ṣāliḥ “Saiyāḥ”, entitled S̲h̲ēr-andāz K̲h̲ān, an employee (naukar) of Nawwāb Ṣafdar-Jang (c̲h̲and sāl ba-hamrāhī i … S.M. Ṣāliḥ … būdam, i.o. 3958, fol. 140a, 1. 6). In 1169/1755–6 the Saiyid left S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah [Ṣafdar-Jang’s successor as Nawwāb-Wazīr of Oudh], and, with G̲h̲ulām-Ḥasan, entered the service of Aḥmad K̲h̲ān Bangas̲h̲ at Farruk̲h̲ābād. In 1173/1759–60 G̲h̲ulām-Ḥasan was in the employ of Nawwāb Saʿd Allāh K̲h̲ān b. ʿAlī M. K̲h̲ān Rōhēlah. In 1197/1783 at the instigation of his friend (“mus̲h̲fiqī”) S̲h̲. Allāh-Yār Bahādur b. S̲h̲. Allāh-Yār s̲h̲ahīd (for whom see pp. 110–111 supra) he went to Allahabad and met Captain Jonathan Scott [S̲h̲. Allāh-Yār’s employer]. In the same year at Captain Scott’s request he wrote his account of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh ¶ Abdālī’s invasion. His S̲h̲arāʾif i ʿUt̲h̲mānī, a history of the ʿUt̲h̲mānī clan of Bilgrām, was begun in 1159/1746 (mss.: i.o. 3913a, Ivanow 277).

(Baʿḍī az aḥwāl i Aḥmad S̲h̲ah Bāds̲h̲āh Abdālī), an account of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh’s third invasion in 1169/1755–6 [as the author says, but actually in 1170/1756–7] written in 1197/1783: i.o. 3958 foll. 139–66 (late 18th cent.).

[Autobiographical statements in the account of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh’s invasion.]

§ 792. Other works relating to Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Durrānī’s invasions:

(1)

Aḥmad-nāmah, a more or less metrical account completed on 20 Jumādā i ah 1184/1770 by ʿAbd al-Laṭīf “Laṭīf”, of K’hark’haudah [in the Rohtak division of the Panjāb]: i.o. 3964 (18th cent.).

(2)

Ahwāl i Bhāō Marhaṭṭah u sabab i āmadan i ū ba-Hindūstān u kus̲h̲tah s̲h̲udan i ū bā tamām ham-rāhiyān dar muḥārabah i Aḥmad S̲h̲āh i Abdālī bah ḥudūd i Pānī-pat: Ethé 527 (12)–(13) (2 copies, one dated ah 1197/1783).

(3)

Kār-nāmah, a mat̲h̲nawī on the war against Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Abdālī which terminated in 1162/1749 by Mīrzā Muḥammad-Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ “Ās̲h̲ōb”, who died at Lucknow in 1199/1784–5 (see pp. 484–485 supra): Ivanow Curzon 302 (18th cent.).

A number of works relating to Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Abdālī’s invasions have already been mentioned on pp. 312–313 supra. Cf. also pp. 599–602 infra and Jadunath Sarkar An original account of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Durrānī’s campaigns in India and the battle of Panipat (from the Persian life of Najib-ud-daulah, British Museum Persian MS. 24,410) in Islamic culture vii/3 (July 1933) pp. 431–56. For the Persian life of Najīb al-Daulah see p. 546 infra.

§ 793. A contemporary resident of Delhi wrote the

Tārīk̲h̲ i Aḥmad-S̲h̲āhī (beginning, without preface in the b.m. ms.: c̲h̲un ẓuhūr i har umūr i ʿuẓmā), a detailed history of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh (reigned 1161/1748–1167/1754, d. 1188/1775): Rieu iii 941b (ah 1267/1851).

English translation (omitting the last quarter of the work) by Sir D. Forsyth: b.m. ms. Add. 30,783.

Extracts from this translation: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 104–23.

§ 794. M. ʿAlī K̲h̲ān Anṣārī has already been mentioned as the author of the general history Baḥr al-mawwāj completed according to the preface in 1209/1794–5 but in fact extending to 1211/1796 (see p. 112 supra) and of the Tārīk̲h̲ i Muẓaffarī, a history of the Indian Tīmūrids composed originally in 1202/1787–8 but subsequently continued to 1225/1810 (see p. 410 supra).

¶ Tārīk̲h̲ i Aḥmad-S̲h̲āhī, a short history of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh written in 1196/1782: Ethé 423 (autograph?).

§ 795. S̲h̲ākir K̲h̲ān was the fourth son of S̲h̲ams al-Daulah Luṭf Allāh K̲h̲ān Ṣādiq (K̲h̲ān-sāmān to Muḥammad S̲h̲āh, see Maʾāt̲h̲ir al-umarāʾ iii 177–8) and a brother of ʿInāyat K̲h̲ān “Rāsik̲h̲”. At the time of Nādir S̲h̲āh’s invasion he was Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī, in the Risālah i Sulṭānī. When Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Abdālī sacked Delhi in 1170/1756, he escaped to Benares. Having failed to obtain the support of Mīr Qāsim, he sought the protection of British officials.

Tārīk̲h̲ i S̲h̲ākir-K̲h̲ānī, a dateless, unprecise and disorderly history of Muḥammad S̲h̲āh and his successors down to the beginning of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam’s reign: Rieu i 279b (18th cent.), i.o. 3973 (defective. Circ. ad 1884).

§ 796. Of unknown authorship is the

(Tārīk̲h̲ i ʿĀlamgīr i T̲h̲ānī), a very full record of the reign of ʿĀlamgīr ii (ah 1167/1754–1173/1759): Rieu iii 942b (circ. ad 1850), Lindesiana p. 244 no. 873 (apparently. Circ. ad 1790).

Description and 3 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 140–3.

§ 797. ʿAbd al-Qādir K̲h̲ān, commonly called (ʿurf) G̲h̲ulām-Qādir K̲h̲ān,²⁵ Jā’isī²⁶ was the son of Maulawī Wāṣil ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, Qāḍī ’l-Quḍāt of Bengal. In his youth he enjoyed the society of two well-known historians, ʿAlī Ibrāhīm K̲h̲ān (who was Chief Magistrate²⁷ at Benares and who died there in 1208/1793–4. See p. 550 infra) and S. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān (for whom see p. 491 infra). Jonathan Duncan (who was Resident at Benares from 1788 to 1795) sent him more than once on political missions to Nēpāl and, according to his own statement in the Ḥas̲h̲mat i Kas̲h̲mīr, his reports were submitted to Col. Kirkpatrick, translated and printed. Rieu adds that he is mentioned as a member of the 1793 mission by Col. W. Kirkpatrick in An account of the Kingdom of Nepaul. Observations made during a mission to that country in 1793, pp. xi and 367.

At the time when Wazīr ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, Nawwāb-Wazīr of Oudh, was deposed in favour of Saʿādat-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān [ah 1212/Jan. 1798] ʿAbd al-Qādir K̲h̲ān was rafīq (presumably meaning “personal assistant” or the like) to John Lumsden, ¶ Resident at Lucknow, and conveyed to Wazīr ʿAlī K̲h̲ān the announcement of his deposition [ʿImād al-saʿādat p. 165 ult.].

He was for a time in the service of Mahārājah Amrit Rāō, who by order of the Governor-General Marquess Wellesley [and therefore not earlier than 1798, since Lord Wellesley was Governor-General from May 1798 to July 1805] took up his residence in Benares. Through the influence of the British Agent, Ḥas̲h̲mat al-Daulah Wm. Augustus Brooke, ʿAbd al-Qādir’s personal jāgīr was made hereditary, and to him he dedicated the Ḥas̲h̲mat i Kas̲h̲mīr, a history of Kas̲h̲mīr completed at Benares in 1245/1830 (see p. 538 infra).

In Jumādā i 1250/1834 Mr [or rather Captain] Thoresby [Superintendent of the Sanskrit College at Benares] suggested that he should make a search for a biography of the Nawwāb G̲h̲āzī al-Dīn K̲h̲ān ʿImād al-Mulk written during a visit to Benares by one of the Nawwāb’s confidants (mutawassilān). ʿAbd al-Qādir K̲h̲ān replied that, although for nearly fifty years he had been living at Benares in the Aiwān i Dārā-S̲h̲ukōh, which at that time (al-ḥāl) was known as the Ḥawēlī Rājah S̲h̲itāb Rāy or ʿAdālat i Qadīmah, he had never seen such a person or heard of his book. He would, however, himself write a life of the Nawwāb ʿImād al-Mulk.

(Tārīk̲h̲ i ʿImād al-Mulk), a history of ʿImād al-Mulk G̲h̲āzī al-Dīn K̲h̲ān Fīrōz-Jang, the Wazīr of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh (reigned ah 1161/1748–1167/1754) and ʿĀlamgīr ii (reigned ah 1167/1754–1173/1759), based partly on oral information from various persons including the Nawwāb himself, who had recounted to the author at Kālpī some of the events of his life, and also on written sources such as the Nawwāb’s letters (k̲h̲uṭūṭ), the Tārīk̲h̲ i S̲h̲ujāʿī of Harc̲h̲arandās and the Ḥadīqat al-aqālīm of S̲h̲. Ilāh-Yār Bilgrāmī (see p. 111 supra): Bānkīpūr vii 615 (19th cent.), i.o. 4000 (ad 1892. Apparently transcribed by the same copyist as the Bānkīpūr ms.), 4001 (abridged. Late 19th cent.).

[Ḥas̲h̲mat i Kas̲h̲mīr, preface (see Rieu iii 1016a); Tārīk̲h̲ i ʿImād al-Mulk, preface; W. Kirkpatrick An account of the Kingdom of Nepaul pp. xi, 367; ʿImād al-saʿādat p. 165 ult.–166⁶; S. ʿĀbid Ḥusain Tārīk̲h̲ i Jā’is p. 14.]

§ 798. M. Ṣāliḥ “Qudrat” is, according to the colophon of the Bānkīpūr manuscript, the author of the Tārīk̲h̲ i ʿālī fī silk al-laʾālī.

(1)

Tārīk̲h̲ i ʿālī fī silk al-laʾālī, written at the request of James Brown, a history (without dates) of Aurangzēb’s successors from Bahādur S̲h̲āh to S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam ii, the account of the last reign being only summary and ending with Visvāsa Rāō’s death in 1174/1760: Bānkīpūr vii 581 (ad 1785), Browne Suppt. 242 (ah 1199/1784–5. King’s 73).

(2)

¶ Najaf-nāmah, a poem (unfinished?) in the ramal metre narrating the victorious operations of Nawwāb D̲h̲ū ’l-Faqār al-Daulah Najaf K̲h̲ān against the T’hānah-dār of Maidān K’harī, against c̲h̲andū, Faujdār of Kōl and the Jāṭ Rājah Nawal Sing’h in the fifteenth year of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam, ah 1187/1774: i.o. d.p. 1277 (18th cent.).

§ 799. Mīrzā Jawān-bak̲h̲t,²⁸ afterwards known as Jahāndār S̲h̲āh, was the eldest son of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam. He was appointed Regent by Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Abdālī in 1761 after the battle of Pānīpat, and administered the empire until his father’s restoration in 1771. In April 1784, on account of the unsettled affairs of his father, he escaped from Delhi and went to Lucknow. From there he accompanied Warren Hastings to Benares, where he lived the rest of his life and died on 31 May 1788.

Account of his own escape from Delhi, written at the request of Warren Hastings: no mss. recorded.

English translation by Jonathan Scott: Memoir relative to the state of India … by Warren Hastings, London 1786*, pp. 163–96.

§ 800. Ṭahmās K̲h̲ān, born near Bāyazīd in Asia Minor, was captured as an infant by Nādir S̲h̲āh’s Uzbaks. Some years later he was taken by his Uzbak master to India, where he served in the army of Muʿīn al-mulk (d. 1167/1753–4), the Ṣūbah-dār of Lahore. After a period in the service of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh Durrānī, who created him a K̲h̲ān, he returned to India and served successively under Ḍābiṭah K̲h̲ān and Najaf K̲h̲ān at Delhi. At the time when he wrote his Ṭahmās-nāmah he was living at Delhi in great affluence, and had received from S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam the title of Muḥkim al-Daulah Ṭahmās K̲h̲ān Iʿtiqād-Jang. He mentions that he had previously written a sketch of his life in Turkī and a Turkī manual entitled Aḥmad-nāmah. The Urdu poet “Rangīn” was a son of his.

(Ṭahmās-nāmah), discursive memoirs of his own life and an account of contemporary events written for his children and completed in 1193/1779: Rieu iii 980b (18th cent.).

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii p. 100.

¶ § 801. The precise subject of the Waqāʾiʿ i S̲h̲ujāʿī is not clear from the Eton catalogue, but it may be mentioned here since it can scarcely be entirely irrelevant.

Waqāʾiʿ i S̲h̲ujāʿī, “History written for Shujāʿ al-daulah, ending about 1193. Preface, three books and conclusion”:²⁹ Eton 197.

§ 802. Nawwāb³⁰ S. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān Ṭabāṭabāʾī Ḥasanī was born at S̲h̲āhjahānābād, i.e. Delhi, the home of his ancestors for some generations,³¹ in 1140/1727–8 (Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, Lucknow 1866, iii p. 948^21–22, Raymond’s trans., reprint Calcutta 1926, iv p. 88). In his fifth year under stress of poverty (ʿusrat zūr āward, S. al-m. iii p. 948²³) his mother’s grandmother, a paternal aunt of ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān Mahābat-Jang,³² sold her house at Delhi and took G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, his father and mother and some other relations to Murs̲h̲idābād, where, according to G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān was then living³³ in the service of S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah, the Nāẓim of Bengal (S. al-m. iii p. 948^23–25, trans. iv p. 88). When ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān was appointed Governor of the province of ʿAẓīmābād, G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain’s father, S. Hidāyat-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, accompanied him³⁴ and made the town of ʿAẓīmābād (i.e. Patna) his home (Baʿd i c̲h̲and rūz Mahābat-Jang ba-yāwarī-yi iqbāl niẓāmat i ṣūbah i ʿAẓīmābād yāft wālid i marḥūm ba-rafāqat i ū dar baldah i mad̲h̲kūrah rasīdah tawaṭṭun guzīd, S. al-m. iii p. 948^25–26, trans. (1926) iv p. 88). S. Hidāyat-ʿAli K̲h̲ān prospered at ʿAẓīmābād and eventually became Nāʾib of the province³⁵ (S. al-m. ii p. 522¹⁸: ¶ wālid i faqīr rā kih nāʾib i ṣūbah i ʿAẓīmābād būd). The houses and estates acquired by him were still in the possession of G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, his eldest son, in 1195/1781, when he was writing the Siyar al-mutaʾk̲h̲k̲h̲irīn (az-ān zamān ilā ’l-ān kih sāl i nawad u panjum az miʾah i duwāzdahum i Hijrat ast dar-īn makān Īzad taʿālā ba-kām u ārām u ba-ʿizzat u iḥtis̲h̲ām nigah-dās̲h̲tah buyūt i mamlūkah u maḥāllāt i mamlūk u al-tamg̲h̲ā ba-qadr i qismat kih dar ẓāhir ba-sabab i g̲h̲ufrān-panāh Mahābat-Jang muyassar āmadah dar qabḍah i taṣarruf u auqāt dar gud̲h̲ar ast, S. al-m. iii p. 948 antepenult., trans. (1926) iv p. 88). His jāgīr near Rohtās, where he founded the village of Ḥusainābād and where he spent the years of his retirement before his death on 3 Jumādā ii 1179/1765 (S. al-m. ii p. 776²¹, trans. (1926) iii p. 16), is often mentioned by G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, both father and son repeatedly visiting their relations at that place.

In 1156/1743 Hidāyat-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, leaving the service of Haibat-Jang, the Governor of ʿAẓīmābād, migrated for a time to S̲h̲āhjahānābād, and it was from there that G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain went in Muḥarram 1158/Jan.–Feb. 1745 to ʿAẓīmābād for the purpose of marrying the daughter of his maternal uncle, ʿAbd al-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān. In the following month, though he had no official employment (bī ʿalāqah i naukarī), he served with (ba-rafāqat i) his uncle in the army of Haibat-Jang, which defended ʿAẓīmābād against Muṣṭafā K̲h̲ān (S. al-m. ii p. 536^11–17, trans. (1926) i p. 449). At the end of 1161/1748 G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain presented himself before Saʿīd Aḥmad K̲h̲ān Ṣaulat-Jang (ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān’s son-in-law) at Mōngīr (“Monghyr”) and was taken into his service (mubālag̲h̲ah numūd kih hamīs̲h̲ah dar safar u ḥaḍar mulāzim bāyad būd u wajhī ba-qadr i maʿās̲h̲ barāyi bandah … muqarrar numūdah dast-k̲h̲aṭṭ farmūd. S. al-m. ii p. 573 penult., trans. (1926) ii p. 72). Soon afterwards Ṣaulat-Jang was appointed Faujdār of Pūrniyah, an office which he held for seven years until his death in 1169/1754 (S. al-m. ii pp. 575^1–2, 602²⁴, trans. (1926) ii pp. 74, 141). Among the favours received from him by G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain was the right to collect by deputy the revenue of the parganah of Srīpūr, a privilege which gave him an income of seven thousand rupees a year (S. al-m. ii p. 602^1–12, trans. (1926) ii p. 140). When Ṣaulat-Jang was succeeded by his eldest son S̲h̲aukat-Jang, G̲h̲ulām-Husain resigned (S. al-m. ii p. 607¹⁵, trans. (1926) ii p. 153 (mistranslated): bandah kih az ʿaql u auḍāʿ i ū iṭṭilāʿ i tamām dās̲h̲t baʿd i kāmyābī i ū istiʿfā-yi naukarī numūd). Some time later, however, he yielded to S̲h̲aukat-Jang’s entreaties and reluctantly entered the service of a man whom he disliked and despised (S. al-m. ii p. 623 ult., trans. (1926) ii p. 194). In Muḥarram 1170/Sept.–Oct. 1756 S̲h̲aukat-Jang, having conceived the absurd idea of wresting Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from Sirāj ¶ al-Daulah,³⁶ who had recently (9 April 1756) succeeded ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān, was defeated and slain in a battle with Sirāj al-Daulah’s forces. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, who was regarded by Sirāj al-Daulah as S̲h̲aukat-Jang’s instigator (S. al-m. ii p. 631^14–15, trans. (1926) ii p. 214), escaped after some adventures from Sirāj al-Daulah’s dominions and went to Benares, where several of his relations, some of them banished by Sirāj al-Daulah, were living (S. al-m. ii p. 632¹⁷, trans. (1926) ii p. 217). In S̲h̲awwāl 1170/June–July 1757 Sirāj al-Daulah was defeated by Clive at Plassey, and Mīr Jaʿfar K̲h̲ān, a brother-in-law of ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān, was proclaimed Governor of Bengal.

Mīr Jaʿfar K̲h̲ān had been a close friend of G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain’s father, and in their early days G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain and his brother Naqī³⁷ ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, especially the latter, had known him well (S. al-m. ii p. 642^19–24, trans. (1926) ii p. 247). They felt, therefore, that their star was in the ascendant, and that circumstances were favourable for their return to ʿAẓīmābād, where their homes and estates were situated (S. al-m. ii p. 642^19–20). Mīr Jaʿfar, however, showed himself hostile, and Naqī ʿAlī K̲h̲ān, having gone to ʿAẓīmābād with some of his relations, soon received through Rājah Rām Nārāyan,³⁸ the Governor, an order to return. Only through the influence of Mīr Jaʿfar’s elder brother, Mīr M. Kāẓim K̲h̲ān, was he permitted to stay. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain himself soon afterwards went to ʿAẓīmābād and obtained Rām Nārāyan’s permission to live there (S. al-m. ii p. 643^1–15, trans. (1926) ii pp. 248–9). For some time he was in poor circumstances (har c̲h̲and ʿusrat u tahī-dastī i bisyār dar-ān awān lāḥiq būd. S. al-m. ii p. 647 ult., trans. (1926) ii p. 260), though at Rām Nārāyan’s request Mīr Jaʿfar restored to him some estates (jāgīrāt i qadīm) near Mōngīr (S. al-m. ii p. 649¹⁵, trans. (1926) p. 265). About this time he was introduced by his friend Mīr ʿAbd Allāh Ṣafawī to Mr. Amyatt, the recently-appointed Chief of the Patna factory³⁹ (S. al-m. ii p. 651^10–11, trans. (1926) ii p. 270). With Dr. Fullarton, the Medical Officer of the Patna factory, whom he often mentions and whom he came to know well, he was acquainted in 1173/1759–60, if not earlier (cf. S. al-m. ii p. 676^1–2, trans. (1926) ii p. 333). Rām Nārāyan was virtually the independent ruler of the province of ʿAẓīmābād (S. al-m. ii p. 651 ult., trans. (1926) p. 271 penult.). G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, having accepted from him a small allowance (qalīl wajhī. S. al-m. ii p. 653¹⁹, trans. (1926) ii p. 276), was in his service, and before long he and his brothers were able to recover their estates (jāgīrāt) near Rohtās, ¶ which had been seized by a neighbouring zamīndār, when the brothers were banished by Sirāj al-Daulah (S. al-m. ii p. 653 penult., trans. (1926) ii p. 276).

In 1172/1759 the S̲h̲āh-zādah ʿĀlī-Guhar and Muḥammad-Qulī K̲h̲an, the Nāẓim of Allahabad, made their unsuccessful invasion of Bengal. In the retinue of the S̲h̲āh-zādah was G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain’s father, Bak̲h̲s̲h̲ī al-Mulk Naṣīr al-Daulah S. Hidāyat-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān Bahādur Asad-Jang (S. al-m. ii p. 657²², trans. (1926) ii p. 286), who, though living in some magnificence at Delhi, had for sixteen years contributed nothing to the support of G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain and his mother (S. al-m. ii p. 660^{6, 9}, trans. (1926) ii p. 293). G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain was sent by Rām-Nārāyan to the enemy’s camp with a view to approaching his father and entering into negotiations with the S̲h̲āh-zādah (S. al-m. ii (iii) p. 661^3–4, trans. (1926) ii p. 296). He did not return to ʿAẓīmābād, but, before the failure of the final attack on the town, retired with his mother, his wife and other female relations to Sahasrām in the territory of Pahlawān Sing’h (S. al-m. ii p. 669², trans. (1926) ii p. 316). Shortly afterwards the S̲h̲āh-zādah and G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain’s father arrived at Sahasrām. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain and his brothers, having thrown in their lot with the S̲h̲āh-zādah and incurred the hostility of the Nāẓim of Bengal and his British supporters, could not return to ʿAẓīmābād, and at G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain’s suggestion they and their father attached themselves to Pahlawān Sing’h, who was proposing to resist Mīran, Mīr Jaʿfar’s son, and the British. Pahlawān Sing’h wished the S̲h̲āh-zādah to join him but failed to win his confidence. The S̲h̲āh-zādah, deciding to write to Colonel Clive (S. al-m. ii p. 670 ult., trans. (1926) ii p. 320 ult.), sent his muns̲h̲īs to G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain’s father with instructions to draft a letter. Their drafts failing to win approval, G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain at his father’s request drafted a letter which was approved. Soon afterwards G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain and his wife went to Benares and he remained there for some months (S. al-m. ii p. 672³, trans. (1926) ii p. 323). When the S̲h̲āh-zādah in 1173/1759, having just claimed the throne as S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam ii, appeared for the second time near ʿAẓīmābād, G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain was again living there, having obtained the reluctant consent of Rām Nārāyan and a welcome from Mr. Amyatt and Dr. Fullarton (S. al-m. ii pp. 675 penult., 676^1–3, trans. (1926) ii p. 333).

In 1174/1760 Mīr Jaʿfar was deposed, and Mīr Qāsim appointed Nāẓim in his stead. In 1174/1761, when Major Carnac encamped outside ʿAẓīmābād before marching against S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam and Monsieur Law and defeating them at Gayā, G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain joined Carnac, with whom were Rājah Rām Narāyan and Rāj Ballabh. Being unable on account of his straitened circumstances (binā bar ʿusrat i sāl-hā. S. al-m. ii p. 699 ult., trans. (1926) ii p. 397) to provide his own equipment, he was provided by Carnac and Hay with a tent, horses and arms. ¶ Enjoying the confidence of the British and being at the same time a well-wisher (daulat-k̲h̲wāh) of Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān, he was sent from the camp to the latter at Bud’hgām with a request from the British Commanders that he would come to ʿAẓīmābād and decide between the contradictory advice given by Rām Narāyan and Rāj Ballabh. Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān declined to come on that occasion, but not long afterwards he moved to ʿAẓīmābād and from there sent G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain on a mission to Calcutta. For two or three months he remained there (S. al-m. p. 706²³, trans. (1926) ii p. 416), trying to carry out his mission, which was to induce Mr. Amyatt (a member of the Calcutta Council. See Buckland Dictionary of Indian biography p. 13) to put Rājah Rām Narāyan under the control of Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān. Soon after G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain returned to ʿAẓīmābād, he was summoned by Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān, who was then at that place, and asked to surrender his estate at Monghyr in order that it might be conferred on a certain Gurgīn K̲h̲ān. Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān promised to compensate him by giving him an estate elsewhere, but set out for Bhōjpūr and Sahasrām without carrying out his promise. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, being heavily in debt and without camp equipage, was unable to accompany him (S. al-m. ii p. 709^13–21, trans. (1926) ii pp. 424–5). He was living thus in straitened circumstances at ʿAẓīmābād, when Dr. Fullarton suggested that he should go to Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān at Monghyr, since the British could not protect him or openly help him in view of their agreements with Mīr Qāsim. Accepting the advice, G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain went to Monghyr in D̲h̲ū ’l-Ḥijjah 1175/June–July 1762. In Muḥarram 1176/1762 Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān gave him a present (inʿām) of 5,000 rupees and ordered that the arrears of his salary should be paid and that thenceforward he should be paid regularly month by month (S. al-m. ii p. 713^1–10, trans. (1926) ii pp. 434–6). For the moment, therefore, his circumstances were improved, but in view of his relations with the British his position was difficult and he lived in constant dread of Mīr Qāsim K̲h̲ān’s suspicions (S. al-m. ii p. 713^15–16, trans. (1926) ii p. 436).

When Amyatt was sent by the Calcutta Council in 1176 on an embassy to Mīr Qāsim, the latter deputed G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain and a friend of his to meet Amyatt on his way to Monghyr and find out his real intentions (S. al-m. ii p. 722², trans. (1926) ii p. 458). In 1177/1763 G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain accompanied Mīr Qāsim on his march from Monghyr to ʿAẓīmābād, was present at his defeat by the British forces and went with the defeated army to the neighbourhood of Benares (S. al-m. ii p. 743^10–11, trans. (1926) ii p. 513). At this point he left the army (S. al-m. ii p. 743²³, trans. (1926) ii p. 517) and lived at Benares for some months (S. al-m. ii p. 746^9–10, trans. (1926) ii p. 524). In Ramaḍān 1177/March 1764 the army of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam and the Nawwāb-Wazīr of Oudh, which Mīr Qāsim had joined, reached Benares. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain attached himself to it (S. al-m. ii p. 746^{8–10, 25–26}, trans. (1926) ii ¶ pp. 524–5) and he was present at the subsequent engagements without being actually in anyone’s employ (Faqīr kih sar-ris̲h̲tah i naukarī bā kasī na-dās̲h̲t bar aspī suwār … ham-rāh i īs̲h̲ān dar fauj i ʿĀlī-Jāh būd. S. al-m. ii p. 749^19–21, trans. (1926) ii p. 532). Dissatisfied with Mīr Qāsim, he had joined the Emperor, but, seeing the inefficiency of the Nawwāb-Wazīr’s army, he disliked to stay with such a disorderly crowd. Dr. Fullarton, with whom he had remained in correspondence, had repeatedly suggested that he should induce the Emperor to throw in his lot with the British. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain transmitted the suggestion through intermediaries (S. al-m. ii p. 751^13–18, trans. (1926) ii pp. 535–6), and the Emperor, weary of the insubordination of the Nawwāb-Wazīr, agreed to the proposal and sent G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain with a letter to the British Commander at ʿAẓīmābād (S. al-m. ii p. 751 penult., trans. (1926) ii p. 537). Shortly afterwards (evidently in 1178/1764–5) G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain was asked by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro whether he could contrive to put the fortress of Rohtās in the hands of the British. He wrote to the Qalʿah-dār, a man under obligations to his family, and pointed out the advantage of being on the winning side. The Qalʿah-dār accordingly arranged that Rohtās should be surrendered (S. al-m. ii p. 758^6–16, trans. (1926) ii p. 553).

In 1179/1765 G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, having been recommended by Dr. Fullarton, was working under Mr. Sage, Chief of the Benares factory (dar-īn auqāt faqīr ba-sipāris̲h̲ i Dākṭar Fullartan dar rafāqat i Misṭar Sēj … s̲h̲udah būd. S. al-m. ii p. 776¹⁷, trans. (1926) iii p. 16). On hearing of his father’s death, he left Mr. Sage and went to Ḥusainābād. Soon afterwards possession of the jāgīr was confirmed to him as the eldest son (S. al-m. ii p. 777^2–3, trans. (1926) iii p. 17). In 1180/1767 Rājah S̲h̲itāb Rāy [Nāʾib-Dīwān of Bihār] went to Calcutta to meet Henry Verelst, the new Governor of Bengal. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain, desirous of entering his service, went with him (faqīr ham binā bar ḥusn i sulūk i ū qāṣid i rafāqatas̲h̲ gas̲h̲tah ham-rāh raft. S. al-m. ii p. 780¹³, trans. (1926) iii p. 24). In 1187/1773–4 (apparently) he spent two or three weeks in Calcutta making arrangements for a pilgrimage to Mecca (S. al-m. ii p. 797^2–7, trans. (1926) iii pp. 70–1). In 1188/1774–5, having become surety for a zamīndār, whom he had known for many years, he suffered a loss of fifty or sixty thousand rupees and was reduced to poverty. A month later Colonel (afterwards General) Goddard,⁴⁰ with whom he was already acquainted, arrived in ʿAẓīmābād on his way to assume the command of C̲h̲unār Fort. Hearing of G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain’s ¶ plight, he took him with him to C̲h̲unār and put him in charge of the financial arrangements there (faqīr rā dar kār-hā-yi mālī i ān-jā muk̲h̲tār sāk̲h̲tah). Not long afterwards Goddard was appointed to the command of Āṣaf al-Daulah’s army. G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain spent 14 months with him at Lucknow and then returned to ʿAẓīmābād (S. al-m. iii p. 952⁴). Early in 1192/1778, desiring to approach the British authorities with reference to a personal matter, which he does not particularise, he took the opportunity of accompanying Colonel Goddard from ʿAẓīmābād to Calcutta. Unfortunately, although he had two or three interviews with Hastings, whom he had known for some considerable time (S. al-m. ii p. 806^13–14), his journey was fruitless. The British, he says, were too much occupied with wars and personal quarrels to have any time to spare for the affairs of Indians, and Colonel Goddard, on whose support he had relied, was put in command of the Bengal contingent which marched across India to aid the Bombay army against the Marāṭ’hās (S. al-m. ii p. 805, trans. (1926) iii p. 98). He had declined Colonel Goddard’s offer to take him with the army as Mīr Muns̲h̲ī and envoy to the Marāṭ’hā generals (S. al-m. ii p. 806^15–18, trans. (1926) iii p. 101: az Karnal Gādard maʿlūm s̲h̲ud kih mī-k̲h̲wāhad faqīr rā mulāzim i k̲h̲wud gardānad ammā mas̲h̲rūṭ ba-dū kār yakī ān-kih ba-ṭaur i Mīr Muns̲h̲ī umūr i dār al-ins̲h̲āʾ ba-faqīr rujūʿ būdah bī mulāḥaẓah u iṣlāḥ i īn aqall al-anām ṣūrat i irqām na-yābad duwwum ān-kih safar i sifārat i Dak’han⁴¹ ham ba-faqīr mutaʿalliq bās̲h̲ad bandah kār i duwwum rā ba-k̲h̲auf i pīrī u dūrī az ʿiyāl u aṭfāl u maḥrūmī az taqbīl i qudūm [sic] i wālidah … inkār numūd). In Rabīʿ ii 1194/1780 he found himself obliged to go again to Calcutta to settle some business (ba-iḍtirār i infiṣāl i muʿāmalah i k̲h̲wud). During that journey he was preparing the brouillon of the Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn (S. al-m. ii p. 813^4–6, trans. (1926) iii p. 118). While at Calcutta he had an interview with Hastings, who was sympathetic and promised that his wish would be accomplished, but the promise was not fulfilled (S. al-m. ii p. 816 antepenult., trans. (1926) iii p. 129).

The year 1195/1781 is several times mentioned as the current year in the Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲kh̲irīn, but there is one passage (ii p. 820¹¹) where 1198/1783–4 is described as “last year”. If the S̲h̲araf-nāmah mentioned below is a work of his, he was alive in 1221/1806–7, and, if the Bānkīpūr ms. (No. 282) is really an autograph, he cannot have died before 1230/1815. In that case he must have lived to a very advanced age.

Although G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain records the fact of his entry into the employ of several different persons, it is not his practice to state the precise designation of the office that he held. We have seen, however, that the position offered ¶ to him by Colonel Goddard was that of Mīr Muns̲h̲ī and it may be surmised that in at least some of the other cases he was employed as a Muns̲h̲ī. In one passage he mentions that “to the present day” Mr. Hastings praises his letters (wa-ilā ’l-ān Gawarnar ʿImād al-Daulah Misṭar Has̲h̲ting Bahādur Jalādat-Jang muḥarrarāt i faqīr rā mī-sitāyad. S. al-m. ii p. 674^16–17, trans. (1926) ii p. 329, where the passage is inaccurately translated).

In addition to the Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn he wrote (1) Bis̲h̲ārat al-imāmah,⁴² a mat̲h̲nawī on the lives of his ancestors, especially the miracles of his great-grandfather S. Faiḍ Allāh Ṭabāṭabāʾī and his grandfather S. ʿAlīm Allāh Ṭabāṭabā⁴³ (ms.: Bānkīpūr Suppt. i no. 1991), (2) a theological work on the prerogatives of ʿAlī and his descendants, being a S̲h̲īʿite interpretation of certain traditions quoted in the Fawātiḥ of Mīr Ḥusain al-Maibud̲h̲ī (ms. Bānkīpūr xiv no. 1319, defective at both ends and of unknown title), (3) an Arabic tafsīr (tafsīr dar tāzī i bā-muḥāwarah), (4) a commentary on the Mat̲h̲nawī of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, (5) other theological works (u dīgar kutub i kalāmīyah), (6) a dīwān (u dīwān i as̲h̲ʿār). Nos. (3)–(6) are mentioned here on the authority of “a short biographical account of the author by Sayyid ʿAlî Muḥammad S̲h̲âd (the well-known Urdû poet of Patna) written in his own hand”⁴⁴ on a fly-leaf at the beginning of the Bānkīpūr ms. of the Bis̲h̲ārat al-imāmah. A work entitled S̲h̲araf-nāmah written in 1221/1806–7 by G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain K̲h̲ān. Muns̲h̲ī i Dār al-ins̲h̲āʾ i Īsṭ Indiyā Kampanī (Āṣafīyah iii p. 104 no. 1314, a ms. dated 1268/1851–2), may also be by him. It is included in the historical part of the Āṣafīyah catalogue, but its precise subject is not stated.

Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, a history of India from Aurangzēb’s death in 1118/1707 to 1195/1781, begun in Ṣafar 1194/Feb. 1780, completed in Ramaḍān 1195/Aug. 1781 and containing⁴⁵ (1) a history of the Tīmūrids ¶ from Aurangzēb’s death to Nādir S̲h̲āh’s departure in 1152/1739 (beginning Sipās i bī-qiyās u sitāyis̲h̲ i sarmadī-asās and corresponding to pp. 374–486 in the Lucknow editions), (2) a history of Bengal from the death of S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah [in D̲h̲ū ’l-Ḥijjah 1151/March 1739] to 1195/1781 (no separate basmalah. First heading: D̲h̲ikr i riḥlat i S̲h̲ujāʿ al-Daulah Ṣūbah-dār i Bangālah etc. Corresponding to pp. 487–844 in the Lucknow editions), (3) a continuation of the history of India from 1153/1740 to 1195/1781 (beginning: Ḥamd u t̲h̲anā-yi Pāds̲h̲āh i ʿalā ’l-iṭlāq, and corresponding to pp. 846–961 in the Lucknow editions), (4) a K̲h̲ātimah containing some remarks on Aurangzēb’s character and an account of his capture of Bījāpūr and Golconda (headed K̲h̲ātimah i kitāb mutaḍammin i bark̲h̲ī az aḥwāl i Aurangzēb ʿĀlamgīr in the ms. Aumer 240, but in the published editions this section is appended to the Muqaddimah (Calcutta 1836 pp. 400(?)–439, Lucknow editions pp. 337(?)–372) without any heading. In Muṣṭafā’s translation it occurs at the end of the work (Calcutta 1926, vol. iv pp. 124–234)), (5) a subsequently added Muqaddimah, which is in fact the K̲h̲ulāṣat al-tawārīk̲h̲ of Sujān Rāy⁴⁶ (for which see p. 357 supra) with slight alterations and a preface containing a dedication to Warren Hastings: Bānkīpūr vii 582 (with Muqaddimah. Ḥusainābād, ah 1230/1815. Apparently autograph⁴⁷), 583–4 (with Muqaddimah. ¶ ah 1233/1818), Suppt. 1769 (Muqaddimah only. ah 1236/1821), 1770 (with Muqaddimah, but breaking off in the middle of Daftar ii. 19th cent.), Rehatsek p. 77 no. 17 (Daftar ii (though described as jild i awwal). “20th Muharram H. 1195” [sic, but this is doubtless a misprint, or a mistranscription, or a misreading, of the date of completion by the author, 26 Muḥarram 1195]. Analysis), p. 80 no. 18 (Daftar iii (though described as jild i duwwum). Ending with the account of Aurangzēb and his expedition against Golconda. ah 1212/1797–8. Analysis), Ross and Browne 13 (with Muqaddimah. Presented by Sir W. Jones in January 1792⁴⁸), Ethé 417 (without Muqaddimah and slightly defective. Not later than ah 1201/1787), 416 (without Muqaddimah. ah 1205/1791), 418 (without Muqaddimah. N.d.), 419–20 (fragments of Daftar ii), 421 (an index only), Oxford Ind. Inst. ms. Pers. A. i. 19–20 (ah 1202/1788), Bodleian 265 (without Muqaddinah. N.d.), Eton 199 (not later than ad 1790), Berlin (without Muqaddimah. ah 1203/1789), Rieu i 280b (without Muqaddimah. 18th cent.), 281b (without Muqaddimah but with K̲h̲ātimah. Late 18th cent.), Edinburgh 225 (without Muqaddimah. Late 18th cent.), 226 (without Muqaddimah. Late 18th cent.), Lindesiana p. 145 nos. 432–3 (“Vols. i. and iii.” Circ. ad 1800), nos. 150–3 (“Complete. 4 vols.” ad 1802), nos. 897–8 (“3 vols. in 2.” ah 1224/1809), nos. 874–6 (“Vols. i., ii. and iv.” ah 1227/1812), Leyden iii p. 14 no. 926 (ad 1812), Amīrī Efendī Pers. 759–60 = Tauer 554–5 (with Muqaddimah. ah 1229–31/1814–15), Ivanow 174 (Muqaddimah only. 19th cent.), 175 (Daftar iii. Early 13th cent. h), Āṣafīyah i p. 242 no. 198 (ah 1271/1854–5), Vollers 988–90 (inadequately described, but probably a single copy in three volumes, of which 989 appears to be the Muqaddimah and of which 990 is dated 1289/1872), Aumer 239–40 (without Muqaddimah), Browne Pers. Cat. 101–2 (with Muqaddimah), Caetani 43, r.a.s. P. 110 = Morley 105 (without Muqaddimah), P. 111 = Morley 106, P. 112–13 = Morley 107–8 (Daftars ii–iii). Presumably the Tārīk̲h̲ i Muḥammad-S̲h̲āhī by G̲h̲ulām-Ḥusain b. Hidāyat-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān recorded in Āṣafīyah i p. 230 no. 512 (ah 1210/1795–6) and no. 759 (ah 1231/1816) is a part of the Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn.

Editions: (1) Seear-ool mutakh-reen…. The exploits of the moderns, or the history of the empire of Hindoostan, from the year 1118 to 1194 of the Hijrah (ad 1782) … compiled by Nuwwaub Syed Gholam Hosein Khan, Taba Tuba-ee, edited by Hukeem Abdool Mujeed … Calcutta 1248/1833* (Daftars ¶ ii (422 pp.) and iii (115 pp.).⁴⁹ The b.m. has only Daftar iii in this edition). Preface to Seirool Mutakhirin. Or, The History of India. Containing the transactions of the reigns of the beginning of Gorwan and Pandwan, to the beginning of Mohummud Aurung-zeb Awlumgir. Compiled by Syed Gholam Husein Khan Tuba Tubaee … Edited by Hukim Mouluve Abdool Mugid … Volume i. (Muqaddimah i kitāb i Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn), Calcutta 1252/1836*. (2) Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, Nawal Kis̲h̲ōr [Lucknow] 1282–3/1866° (the whole work including the Muqaddimah).⁵⁰ (3) Nawal Kis̲h̲ōr, Lucknow 1314/1897* (agreeing in pagination etc. with no. 2).

English translation (omitting the Muqaddimah but containing the K̲h̲ātimah): A translation of the Sëir Mutaqharin; or, View of Modern Times … [by “Nota Manus”, i.e. Ḥājjī Muṣṭafā, originally Raymond (for whom see Buckland’s Dictionary of Indian biography p. 353)] Calcutta 1789°* (most of this edition was lost at sea), [1902–3°*] (a reprint with index), 1926* (another reprint with index).

Partial translations: (1) History of Bengal from the accession of Aliverdee Khan Mahabut Jung [to the year 1780, being part vi or, in other words, vol. ii, pp. 309–461, of Ferishta’s History of Dekkan … By Jonathan Scott, Shrewsbury 1794°* (see p. 353 supra), (2) The Siyar-ul-mutakherin … Revised from the translation of Haji Mustefa … by J. Briggs. Vol. i. London 1832°* (Oriental Translation Fund. No more published. This translation, about one-fifth of the work, corresponds to vol. i pp. 1–369 in the 1789 edition of Ḥājjī Muṣṭafā’s translation and ends with the defeat of Sarfarāz K̲h̲ān by ʿAlī-Wirdī K̲h̲ān in 1153/1740).

Extracts: (1) Selections from Sairul Muta-akh-kharin … Prescribed as a rapid reading course for B.A. Examination of Allahabad University for 1920–21. Allahabad 1919*. (2) Intik̲h̲āb az Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn [with a glossary]. Allahabad 1922*. (3) Intik̲h̲āb i Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn [the reign of Akbar from the Muqaddimah]. Lucknow [1928*].

Urdu translations: (1) Iqbāl-nāmah, by S. Bak̲h̲s̲h̲is̲h̲-ʿAlī Faiḍābādī, Delhi (see Garcin de Tassy i p. 284, where the authority for saying that this translation was printed at Delhi is given as the “Report of public instruction, 1843–1844; append, cxv”), (2) Mirʾāt al-salāṭīn, by Gōkul Prasād, [Lucknow] 1874°.

Description: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 194–8.

¶ Abridgment: Mulak̲h̲k̲h̲aṣ al-tawārīk̲h̲ or Zubdat al-tawārīk̲h̲, by Farzand-ʿAlī al-Ḥusainī, of Mōngīr, or Maulawī ʿAbd al-Karīm, Head Muns̲h̲ī of the E.I.Co.’s Persian Office (Dār al-ins̲h̲āʾ), or both,⁵¹ in three daftars (i) from Tīmūr to ah 1152/1739, (ii) Bengal and Bihār from circ. 1140/1727–8 to ah 1195/1780–1, (iii) the Tīmūrids from ah 1153/1740–1195/1780–1: Ivanow Curzon 40 (ah 1250/1834), Bānkīpūr vii 585 (ah 1279/1862), Rieu iii 943a (19th cent.).

Editions: Calcutta 1243/1827°*, Āgrah 1247/1831 (see Rieu iii 943a).

Description of the Mulak̲h̲k̲h̲aṣ al-tawārīk̲h̲: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii p. 199.

[Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn, Lucknow 1866, vol. ii (iii) pp. 948–52 (the 10th, 9th and 8th sections from the end of the work) and many other places in vols. ii and iii (most, but not by any means all, of these passages can be traced with the help of the indexes to the [1902–3] and 1926 editions of Raymond’s translation); An account of Gholaum Hossein Khan, Author of a very valuable and interesting Work, intitled “Sëir Mutakharin, or a View of Modern Times”, translated [or rather, summarised] from the Persic Original [i.e. the above-mentioned passage in the Siyar al-mutaʾak̲h̲k̲h̲irīn (Lucknow 1866, vol. ii (iii) pp. 948–52)] (in The Asiatic Annual Register … for the year 1801, London 1802, Characters, pp. 28–32); Riyāḍ al-wifāq (Sprenger p. 170); Elliot and Dowson History of India viii pp. 194–7; Buckland Dictionary of Indian biography p. 164; Ency. Isl. under G̲h̲ulām Ḥusain K̲h̲ān (unsigned and short).]

§ 803. According to Jonathan Scott “The Persic Journal of the cruel proceedings of the unprincipled and inhuman Rhohilla chief, Gholaum Kaudir was written by an eye witness on the scene of their perpetration, and transmitted to me by my brother Captain Richard Scott.”

Account of G̲h̲ulām-Qādir’s proceedings at Delhi: no mss. recorded.

English translation: Ferishta’s History of Dekkan … By Jonathan Scott, Shrews­bury 1794°* vol. ii pp. 285–306.

§ 804. G̲h̲ulām-ʿAlī K̲h̲ān b. Bhik’hārī⁵² K̲h̲ān was the son of Nawwāb Raus̲h̲an al-Daulah Bhik’hārī K̲h̲ān Rustam-Jang, the friend and minister of Muʿīn ¶ al-Mulk (d. 1167/1753–4), the Ṣūbah-dār of Lahore. He was Muns̲h̲ī to Prince Jawān-bak̲h̲t Jahāndār S̲h̲āh⁵³ and was living at Lucknow in 1798 when Captain W. Francklin published his History of the reign of Shah Aulum.

(1)

S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam-nāmah or Āʾīn i ʿĀlam-Shāhī,⁵⁴ a bombastic history of ʿĀlamgīr ii (reigned 1167/1754–1173/1759) and S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam (ʿĀlī-Gauhar,⁵⁵ reigned ah 1173/1759–1221/1806) from the deposition of Aḥmad S̲h̲āh ah 1167/1754 to ah 1203/1789: Bodleian 266 (autograph), Rieu i 281b (18th cent.), 282b (18th cent.), iii 945a (ah 1265/1849), 1027a (extracts only. Circ. ad 1850), Blochet i 615 (18th cent.), Ethé 424 (vol. i, i.e. to ah 1185/1771. ah 1207/1793), 425 (vol. ii, i.e. ah 1185/1771–1203/1789. ah 1206/1792), i.o. 3924 (vol. ii. ad 1878), 3976 (vol. ii. ad 1891), Ivanow 176 (vol. i only).

Edition: Shah Alam Nama … Edited by … Harinath De [Fasc. i, 1912], A. al-Maʾmūn Suhrawardy and Āqā M. Kāẓim s̲h̲īrāzī [Fasc. ii, 1914, extending to ad 1761], Calcutta 1912–(Bibliotheca Indica).

Text and translation of letter from Prince Jawān-bak̲h̲t to George iii and S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam’s lament on the loss of his sight: Francklin op. cit. pp. 242–54.

The history of the reign of Shah-Aulum … By W. Francklin, London, 1798, is largely based on the S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam-nāmah.

(2)

Muqaddimah i S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam-nāmah, a history of the Mug̲h̲uls from the death of Aurangzēb to the accession of ʿĀlamgīr ii, ah 1167/1754, written after the S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam-nāmah as an introduction to it: Bodleian 266 (autograph), Rieu i 278b (18th cent.), 279b (18th cent.).

§ 805. Maulawī K̲h̲air al-Dīn Muḥammad Ilāhābādī, who was born in 1165/1751 and died about 1827, has already been mentioned (pp. 409–410 supra) as the author of a sketch of Tīmūrid history.

ʿIbrat-nāmah,⁵⁶ the fullest and best extant history of S̲h̲āh-ʿĀlam ii (reigned 1173/1759–1221/1806) extending to ah 1206/1791 and divided (in most mss.) into a Muqaddimah and two Daftars: Rieu iii 946a (19th cent.), 947b (Muqaddimah and 1st Daftar only. Circ. ad 1850), 948a (detached sections. Circ. ad 1850), 1026b (extracts from a later recension, said to extend beyond the accession of Akbar S̲h̲āh. Cf. Rieu iii 947b. Circ. ad 1850), 1051b (extracts only), Ivanow 177 (ah 1217/1802–3), 178 (to middle of 2nd Daftar), Ivanow Curzon 38 (part of Daftar i), Bānkīpūr ¶ vii 587–9 (ad 1886), Suppt. 1768 (19th cent.), i.o. 3908–10 (latter half of 19th cent.).

Table of contents of vol. ii with translated extracts: b.m. ms. Add. 30,710, foll. 368–85.

Description and 16 pp. of translated extracts: Elliot and Dowson History of India viii 237–254.

Abridged extracts: Pādās̲h̲ i kirdār, an account of G̲h̲ulām-Qādir K̲h̲ān, by Amīn al-Dīn Ḥusain K̲h̲ān b. k̲h̲air al-Dīn M. K̲h̲ān, the author’s son: Bānkīpūr xvii no. 1717 (19th cent.), i.o. 3979 (transcribed from the preceding ms.).

next chapter: 12.4 19th Century