Asiatic Society
(Calcutta, India),
Asiatic Society ...

TABAKAT-I-NASIRI

A GENERAL HISTORY

OF THE

MUHAMMADAN DYNASTIES OF ASIA,
INCLUDING HINDUSTAN,

From A.H. 194 [810 A.D.], 70 A.H. 658 [1260 A.D.],
AND THE

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDEL MUGHALS INTO ISLAM.

BY

THE MAULANA, MINHAJ-UD-DIN, ABU-’UMAR-I-’USMAN.
Translated from Original Persian Manuscripts.

By MAJOR H. G. RAVERTY,

BOMBAY NATIVE INFANTRY (RETIRED).

Author of a Grammar, a Dictiona and The Gulshan.-i-Roh, or Selections,
Prose and Poetical, in the Pughto or Afghan Language; The Poetry
of the Afghans (English Translation) ; The Fables of sop
Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language ; The Pughto or
Afghan Manual; Notes on Atghanistan,
Geographical, Ethnographical,
and Historical, etc.

VOL. II.

London:
PRINTED BY GILBERT & RIVINGTON.
1881.

720 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

high the standards of jurisdiction of HIS servants in the
decree of duration, this frail one, in repayment of some of

‘those: many: debts of gratitude, desired that he should

thread पुती: thé thread of description, and string on tke

: : string ‘of writing, an account of those Maliks and Khans

a
» * e
= 9

the servants of ‘that Court which is the asylum of the uni-
verse, more particularly the mention of the successive
benefits, and increasing generosity of that Khakan-i-
Mu’azzam', Shahr-yar-i-’Adil wa Akram, Khusrau-i-Bani
Adam, Baha-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din, Mughis-ul-Mulik-i-Islam
wa ul-Muslimin, Zil-l-ullah fi ul-’Alamin, ’Uzd-ud-Daulah
wa us-Sultanat, Yamin-ul-Mamlakat, Kutb-ul-Ma’ali,
Rukn-ul-’Ala, Ulugh Kutlugh-i-A’zam, ULUGH KHAN-I-
BALBAN -US-SULTANI?, Abi-Salatin, Zahir-i- Amir-ul-
Miminin [The Great King, the Most Just and Most Ge-
nerous Prince, the Khusrau: of the race of Adam, the
precious of God and of the Faith, the auxiliary of the
Maliks of Islam and of Musalmans, the shadow of
the Almighty upon the worlds, the pole-star of grandeur,
the sublime prop, the arm of the kingdom and empire,

' It must not be supposed that these are his ८८८५४०८ titles: the greater part of
them are conferred on him by our author out of gratitude for favours received ;
neither do these titles prove that Ulugh Khan-i-Balban was Sultan of Dihli
when these words were penned. The contrary is proved over and over again
in the following pages. As to the word Khakan, which signifies a king or
emperor [particularly the rulers of Iran and Chin], being applied to a great
noble, without his being a sovereign prince, I have myself seen it applied to
a petty Afghan of Multan, who had been a servant of the late Diwan Mulraj
on the liberal salary of 15 ripis m:nthly. Our author has also styled Ulugh
Khan the father of kings, although he could not tell whether either of Balban’s
sons would succeed their father, who was not king in 658 H., when he finished
this History. Moreover, had Ulugh Khan been Sultan of Dihli at this time,
he would not have been styled ‘‘the right arm of the state,” &c. See next page,
and note ५.

2 In his titles given farther on, as here, he is styled ‘‘ Khakan-i-Mu’-aggam,”
in the same line being called ‘‘the Sultan’s s/ave.” His brother also is styled
“° (ण्ट) Kultugh”’ by our author after the same fashion.

It will also be noticed that, with some of these titles, our author uses the
Arabic article J! but with others no J! is given, and, actually, although no
izafats are written, he means them to be used, otherwise the names and titles
would be unintelligible nonsense. I suppose however, afler the fashion of
“ Firuzjang,” ‘‘ Khan Zaman,” ‘‘ Khan Khanan,” Mr. BLOCHMANN will con-
sider this too ‘‘a dangerous innovation,” but I prefer to read them accord.
ing to the Irani fashion, which, by the bye, Mr. Blochmann is sometimes
guilty of—as ^" Rustam-i-Zaman,” ‘‘ Khan-i-’Alam,” ‘‘ Khan-i-Kalan,” &c.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 721

the right hand of the state, the most great Ulugh Kutlugh,
ULUGH KHAN-I-BALBAN of the [time of the] I-yal-timishi
dynasty, the father of Sultans, the Supporter of the
Lord of the Faithfull—May the Almighty exalt his
Helper and double his power !—for, since the pen of the
orbit of existence on the pages of the dawn of empire de-
lineated the tracery of prosperity and the figure of dominion,
it hath not depicted a countenance of felicity more charm-
ing than the aspect of his power ; and the exalting hand
of time, a standard more sublime than his precious and
superb banner, hath never raised.. The Court of no sove-
reign of the universe, either in the east or the west, who
_ hath placed the foot on the throne of dominion, hath had a
servant more sagacious, and no ear hath heard a tale of the
might of dominion more brilliant than the narration of his
rule, for verily his equitable age appears like the succession
of ’Umr, his benevolence tells of the liberality of Hatim, his
sword reminds [one] of the force of Rustam’s blow, and his
arrow the penetration of the arm of Arash®. May God
crown his banner with victory: make strong his nobles and
chiefs : and annihilate his foes!

In the way of repayment therefore of debts [of gratitude]
due to those renowned Maliks, and more particularly for
the mention of the rule of that powerful prince [Ulugh
Khan], this TABAKAH has been written after the manner
of a miscellany, in order that scrutinizers, when they look
into these pages, may, according to the benediction for
those departed and the invocation for the preservation of
those remaining, have the character of every one of them
clearly defined upon the page of the mind. Inthe arrange-
ment also of this TABAKAH, some Maliks were earlier, in
time, than they appear here, and some have been mentioned
later, arising from the period that the author arrived at this
Court *. May the Most High God preserve the Sultan of
Sultans and ° the Ulugh-i-A’zam, Ulugh Khan-i-Mu’azzam,

2 One of the old Persian heroes—the famous archer—who is also men-
tioned in the Shah-Namah.

५ Several are not mentioned at all, the reason of which does not appear.

® This proves what I have already alluded to at page 720. Our author would
scarcely have invoked blessings upon Ulugh Khan, as ‘‘a great monarch,”
while Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, was alive, and prayed for in the same
sentence. His manumission is never noticed.

722 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

in the hall of existence to the utmost limits of possibility.
Amin °|

I. TAJ-UD-DIN, SANJAR.-I-GAJZ-LAK KHAN?.

The arrival of the author [of this history] at the Court
—the asylum of the world—of the beneficent king of kings
[I-yal-timish] took place on Wednesday, the Ist of the
month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 625 H., before [the walls of] the
preserved city of Uchchah, at the period when the Shamsi
forces had marched from the capital city of Dihli for the
purpose of taking possession of the kingdom of Sind, and
had turned their faces towards that country. Fifteen days
prior to this, the victorious troops of that monarch, com-
prising the force under Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-
lak Khan—The Almighty’s mercy be upon him!—had
arrived before Uchchah; and the first personage among the
Maliles of that Court who was seen by the author was
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khan.

When, on Wednesday, the 16th of the month of Safar,
the author proceeded from the city of Uchchah, and
reached the camp of the victorious [forces], that Malik of
good disposition treated him with reverence, and rose from
his masnad, and went through the ceremonial of receiving
him, and came to meet him, and seated the author in his
own place, and put a rosy apple*® into his hand, and

6 To translate that portion of our author’s work referring to the kings of
Dihli, without translating this Section, which throws much light on the
previous ones, would be much like the play of Hamlet with the Prince of
Denmark left out.

7 He is also called Gaz-lak Khan.

8 Literally ‘‘apple of ruby.” Apples grow in Upper Sind, but they are
small. The description of apple here referred to, was probably such as
the traders, up to this day, bring down from above the Passes. It is usual to
carry an apple in the hand for its grateful perfume. I have witnessed this
constantly, and, probably, the custom is not new.

The printed text, which has lately become of considerable authority, because
its statements, in its very defective state, happen to coincide with some errors
and erroneous statements made on the faith of translations from Firightah, has,
contrary to all A/SS. copies collated, the words Jal cuy—i.e. swenty
rubies—instead of Jal wee If these words—sed /a’/—are translated with-
out that ‘‘dangerous innovation,” the dasrah of description—, dregs »s,-S—they
mean ^° apple ruby ”—which is nonsense of course, but, with the necessary ‘‘ in-
novation,” would be seb-é-/a’/—an apple of ruby, that is an apple red as a ruby.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 723

observed: “Take this Maulana, that it may be a good
omen.” I found Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak
Khan, a Malik of sufficiently formidable aspect, his form of
magnitude, and his piety pure, and with a numerous suite,
and followers countless.

Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that the
august Sultan [I-yal-timish] purchased Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khan, during the reign of the late Sultan,
Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, from the Khwajah, ’Ali, the Basta-
badi [of Bastabad १], when he held the government of the
fief of Baran, and gave him to his eldest son, the late
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, and in the hall of
felicity, along with him, was he nurtured and brought up.
After some time, when the Sultan perceived signs of merit
upon his forehead, he removed him from attendance on
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, and took him into
his own immediate service, and gave him the office of
Chashni-gir [Comptroller of the [royal] Kitchen]. After
serving [in this office] for some time, he became Amir-i-
Akhur [Lord or Head of the Stables]. Subsequently, in
the year in Which the Sultan proceeded towards Multan,
namely, in 625 H., the territory of Wanj-rit' of Multan
was made over to him. When the Sultan returned from
thence, he conferred upon Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-
Gajz-lak Khan, the fief of Kuhram. After some time, the
preserved city of Tabarhindah was given to him, and, in
that year, the author reached the Court.

The Sultan had despatched him [Gajz-lak Khan] in ad-
vance, at the head of a force, in concert with Malik ’Izz-ud-
These words might, certainly, be translated ‘‘a ruby like an apple in shape,”
but I think this very unlikely for the reasons above stated ; and a ruby of that
size would be a very costly present, and not to be carried about in one’s hand.

9 Or might be, Bust-abad. The name is doubtful.

1 This place, in most of the copies of the text is written yf) for cys
—Lanj-riit for Banj-rit, and also 5 ,25—Ganj -rat, but Wanj-rit is a well-
known place, giving name to a pargunah. At present there is a tolerably
strong fort there, and it is now contained in the Bahawal-pir state. At the period
Gajz-lak Khan held it, it was in the Multan province, the river Biah then
flowed in its old bed. Between Wanj-riit and Multan no river then existed,
whilst the Lost River—the Hakya and its fecders, now the Sutlaj or Ghara,
separated it from Bikanfr. In Persian words » is sometimes used for 5 but in
Sanskrit words, or words derived from that language, @is often substituted

for Wand vice versa. The printed text, which displays such a profound know-
ledge of the geography of India, has Gujarat and Multan !!

724 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Din, Muhammad-i-Salari—The Almighty’s mercy be upon
him !— from the frontier of the territory of Sind to the foot
[of the walls] of Uchchah.

When Sultan Shams-ud-Din [I-yal-timish], with his
army, pitched his camp before the fortress of Uchchah, in
the year 625 H., Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khan,
was despatched [at the head of a force] in attendance on
the Wazir of the realm, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad,
the Junaidi, against the fortress of Bakhar*. After some
time, that fortress was taken, and Malik [Sultan] Nasir-
ud-Din, Kaba-jah—The Almighty’s mercy be on him !—
was drowned in the river Sind, and the fortress fell into
their hands, as has been before recorded. The preserved
< ` of Uchchah, with its dependencies and territories,
was all placed in Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar’s charge.

When the Sultan with his forces returned towards the
glorious capital, Dihli, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak
Khan, assumed jurisdiction over those territories, and caused
them to flourish and prosper; and he brought the scattered
people, both gentle and simple, together, who dwelt happily
under the justice and benevolence of this Malik of good
disposition. He continued to pursue the beaten track of
impartiality and kindness towards all, and exerted his
powers for the security, safety, and repose of the peasantry,
and the welfare of all [the people]; and, after some time,
under the safeguard of faith, and alms for pious uses,
charitable foundations, and works of public utility, he came
to a happy end, and was removed from the house of this
world to the mansions of life eternal, in the year 629 H.
The Almighty’s mercy and pardon be upon him!

II. MALIK ’IZZ-UD-DIN, KABIR KHAN, AYAZ.I-HAZAR-
MARDAH, UL-MU’IZZI‘.

Malik Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz was a Rimi Turk, and he
had been the slave of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, the

2’ Turned into Thangir in the printed text.

3 What Ochchah was in those days may be gathered from the account of
its investment by the Mughals in the last Section.

4 So styled because he was the slave of Suljan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mubammad-
i-Sim, Ghirf.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 725

Amir-i-Shikar (Chief Huntsman] of Ghaznin, and, after
he was' put to death, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz, along with his
children, reached the country of Hindistan. He attracted
the benevolent notice of the august Sultan [I-yal-timish],
and served him in every degree of employment. He was
a Turk, wise, prudent, and experienced, and, in agility and
martial accomplishments, was the incomparable of his time.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, the Amir-i-Shikar of Ghaznin,
who was his owner and lord, was the theme of every tongue
throughout the whole of the countries of Ghir, Ghaznin,
Khurasan, and Khwarazm, for warlike powers and skill;
and Malik Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz had accompanied his master,
in all circumstances and situations, and had learnt from him
martial accomplishments and the modes of warfare, and had
become a perfect master in the art.

When Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, was put to death by
the Turks of Ghaznin‘, his sons, namely Sher Khan-i-
Surkh [the Red], and his brother, reached the presence of
the sublime Court, and Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
purchased ’Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ay4z, direct from
them. Some have related on this wise, that, when the
august Sultan brought the territory of Multan under his
sway in the year 625 H., he conferred upon ’Izz-ud-Din,
Kabir Khian-i-Ayaz, the city and fortress of Multan, with
the whole of its towns, districts, and dependencies*, and
installed him in the government of that territory, and
exalted him to the title of Kabir Khan-i-Man-girni’, and,
although he used to be styled by people Ay4az-i-Hazar-
Mardah—the name he was famed by—he, consequently,
became celebrated under the title of Kabir Khan-i-Man-
girni. On the return of the Sultan [with his forces] to
Dihli, the capital, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz took possession of
that territory and brought it under his jurisdiction, and

* He had shown disaffection, and, when I-yal-diiz marched towards Dihli
against I-yal-timigh, the Turkish chiefs of Ghaznin put him, as well as the |
former Wazir, to death. See pages 504-5.

¢ This fact is not mentioned under the reign of I-yal-timish, and, in the
account of the preceding Malik, it is stated that he—Gajz-lak Khan—had the
territory of Wanj-riit of Multan conferred upon him in that same year, 625 H.

? This name is somewhat doubtful. In the most trustworthy copies of the
text it is _j<-—Man-girni—as above, and also (j,-—Man-girni ; but in

others it is written all sorts of ways — 7 - + ~ JG and xls
The word is Turkish, in all probability.

9726 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

caused it to flourish; and, after a period of two, three, or
four years, he was recalled to the capital, and Palwal was
assigned to him for his maintenance °.

When the Shamsi reign came to its termination, and
Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz Shah, succeeded, he conferred
upon Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz the district of Sundm’; and,
when Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, from Lohor, and Malik Saif-
ud-Din, Kiji, from Hansi, assembled with hostile intent
against the Court, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz joined them; and,
for a considerable period, they alarmed and distracted the
forces of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, 172 Shah. At last, when
Sultan Raziyyat ' ascended the throne, they advanced upon
the capital, and for a considerable period molested the city
and parts around, and engaged in conflict with the servants
of the Court of the Sultan of Islam, until Sultan Raziyyat,
secretly, by promises of favour, detached him from that
party, and he, in concert with Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Muham-
mad-i-Salari, went over to the service of the Court.
Through their coming [over to the Court party], the
Sultan, the servants of her Court, and the people of the
city, gained a great accession of strength, and Malik Jani
and Malik Kiji, baffled, withdrew.

Sultan Raziyyat showed Kabir Khian-i-Ayaz great
honour, and conferred upon him the province of Lohor,
with the whole of'the dependencies and districts belonging
to that territory; but, after a year or two’, a slight change
manifested itself in the mind of Sultan Raziyyat towards
him, and, in the year 636 H., her sublime standards ad-
vanced towards Lohor. Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz retired before
her, crossed the Rawah’® of Lohor, and retreated as far as the
borders of Siidharah, and the army marched in pursuit of
him. Finding it was impossible to follow any other course*,

8 He must have, consequently, fallen under the Sultin’s displeasure, for
some reason.

9 See under the reign of Rukn-ud-Din, Firiiz Shah, at page 633.

1 Here too is a ^" dangerous innovation :” I have ventured to spell the name
of this queen the right way, and different to the ‘‘ best authorities.”

2 Most copies of the text have ‘‘some years,” and a few ‘‘some time.”
Raziyyat only reigned three years and a half.

3 Thus written in the oldest copies of the text—,say ’sy!, See also the
account of the march against the Mughals in 643 H. in the notice of Ulugh

Khan farther on.
+ See the reigm under, page 645.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. aay

he made his submission, and Multan was again placed under
his charge*. After a considerable period had passed away,
and, when an army of Mughals, under the accursed Man-
giitah, the Ni-in, and the Bahadur, T4a-ir, turned its face
towards Lohor, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz [assumed sovereignty]
in the territory of Sind‘, and a canopy of state, and pos-
sessed himself of Uchchah. Shortly after this disaffection,
in the year 639 H., he died.

After his decease, his son, Taj-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr-i-Ayaz,
who was a young man of good disposition, fiery, very im-
petuous, and courageous, brought the territory of Sind
under his sway. Several times he attacked the Karlugh’
army before the gate of Multan and put it to flight, and
showed such great skill and high-spiritedness that he was
noted for his manliness and valour, when, suddenly, in the
morning of life and flower of his youth, he passed to the
Almighty’s mercy. May God have mercy upon them
both [father and son]. ।

II]. MALIK NASIR-UD-DIN, AI-YITIM-UL-BAHA-L

F Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim, was the slave of Malik
Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, the slave of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Muhammad-i-Sam, and some [persons] have related that the
august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, had purchased
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim, from the heirs of Baha-ud-
Din, Tughril +.

5 The feudatory of Multan got the fief of Lahor in lieu of it. See page 747.

५ This indicates that the provjnce of Multan, as well as Uchchah, was called
- Sind in those days. Some writers style all the tract as far north as the Salt
Range by the name of Sind ; but see next page.

7 Also Karliigh. I have given an account of them in the last Section.
See note 5, para. 2, page 374. This was the second invasion of the Karlughs.
See page 730.

This shows the state of the Dihli kingdom at this time, for, although the
father had openly thrown off allegiance to its sovereign, the latter appears to
have been unable to recover possession of those provinces until after some time
elapsed on the death of the son, Abi-Bikr-i-Ayaz. Nothing whatever respect-
ing this assumption of sovereignty is mentioned under Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bah-
ram Shah’s reign. The izafat here stands for diz: Ayaz was the father’s name,
another of thousands of undoubted proofs, were any wanting, to show that
*“‘the use of the igdfat” is mot ‘‘restricted to poetry, and that it constantly
occurs in prose for di or pisar. See Blochmann’s ‘‘ Contributions,” Part III.,
page 138, last line, and note f.

® See page 544 for an account of Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril.

728 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim, was a man of great pru-
dence and experience, intrepid and steadfast, and just.
When he first was honoured by the august Sultan’s service,
he became Sar-i-Jan-dar [Chief or Head of the Jan dars *],
and, after some time, having done good service, the fief of
Lohor was assigned to him. When in the year 625 H.’,
the august Sultan [I-yal-timish] came for the purpose of
seizing the territory of Sind, and Uchchah and Multan, by
the Sultan’s command, Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim, ad- .
vanced from Lohor and appeared before the fortress of
Multan, and did good service in the acquisition of that
fortification ; and, at length, that stronghold and city he
gained possession of by capitulation®. When the Sultan
came back from the territory of Sind, and returned to the
capital, Dihli, the Siwalikh country, and Ajmir, Lawah,
Kasili, and Sanbhar Namak’, he made over to his charge,
and the Sultan assigned him an elephant, and in this
honour he was distinguished above the other Maliks.

On Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim’s proceeding to
Ajmir, he showed many proofs of vigour and judgment, in
undertaking expeditions and making holy-war upon the
infidel Hindiis and devastating their country, and performed
great achievements. Once, during the time he held that
government, the author found him in the territory of San-
bhar Namak, and he was pleased to show him much honour
and respect ; and, of a verity, he was a Malik of exemplary
faith. Suddenly, he set out on an expedition against the
infidel Hindiis into the Bundi territory, and came upon the
Hindi in a position in a defile, and was under the neces-
sity of passing a river which lay at that place. Being
heavily armed with cuirass, and other defensive armour, he
sank in that river, and was drowned.—The Almigltty’s
mercy be upon him!

® Already described, in note 7, page 603

1 He says 624 H. at page 542 : at pages 723, 725, and 731, we have 625 H.
See also under the reign of I-yal-timish.

3 See under Kaba-jah page 544, and I-yal-timish’s reign, pages 611
and 612.

> Sanbhar—,i's“—which our author writes as above, and also Sanbhal,
with ¢ is the name of a town and district, on the great Salt Lake in Raj-
pitanah, north of Ajmir. Kasili is written Kassullie in Tod’s map, but, in
the Indian Atlas, sheet No. 33, it is turned into व. Lawah is more to the
S.W., in Long. 74°, Lat. 25°, 10’.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 729

IV. MALIK SAIF-UD-DIN, I-BAK 4-I-OCHCHAH.

Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, was the slave of the august Sultan
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, and was a Turk of energy and
sagacity, and exemplary taith, and the Sultan had pur-
chased him from Jam4l-ud-Din, the Armourer*, at Buda’un.

At first he was made Sar-i-Jan-dar [Head of the Jan-
dars]. He was directed to enter upon that office against
his wishes ; and the sum of three laks of jital/s for the
maintenance of his position he did not receive with appre-
ciation. When this came to the Sultan’s hearing he in-

* From the fact of so many chiefs, mentioned in this work, being styled
e&,! as well as Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, there is some room to doubt whether
this word may not here be intended to be pronounced otherwise than I-bak,
since all of them would have fingers, although a// could scarcely have had any
peculiarity of finger; and, as regards Kutb-ud-Din, the matter is cleared up
by the adjective siz or ska/ added to it. With other vowel points—the word
Ai-bak—signifies du¢—idol; or, may be a compound word, from gi aim
moon, and < éaé—lord—the moon-lord—which, although it mzght be the
by-name of one, could scarcely be the by-name of severa/ individuals, all of
whom were sold as slaves. The probability however is that 47-6ué is the most
correct meaning here, viz. ai—moon, and 6#/—face, countenance - ¢#¢ moon-
Jaced, but even then it would be strange that there were so many of them.
Another matter for consideration is, that the word धः, has several other mean-
ings, and is written with «~—é—but described as Persian 4, which signifies
\»——p; and that the vowel points also may change its meaning ; for example :
pak means a finger joint, and the hecl, and also, beauty, grace, &c.; and puk
signifies a frog.

I have never met with the word written Gi and but once met with —gl
with madd over the A/if—and that is Turkish and signifies female, not moon.
Another matter for consideration is, that, if we divide the word d.'— assuming
it to be a compound word —and take the last portion of it—eb—it has various
significations, most of which are said to be Turkish, according to the pronun-
ciation as shown by the vowel points, and also whether the ~ and © are
described as ’Arabic or Persian letters, the former being 4 and 4, and the latter
¢ and g; but, at the same time, it must be understood that they are continually
used indiscriminately, for example: — 546, a lord or chief. 2. A wild cucumber.
Buk, cheek, countenance. 2. Ignorant, stupid. 3. Weak, languid, &c.
Bik, finger. 2. Alivecoal. ak,aid, help. 2. Adefender, patron. 3. The
Singer joint, the heel. 4. Aturban. /uxé, in Persian is the same in significa-
tion 25. the ’Arabic ys’Ls,—which means, relaxed, weak, languid. 2. Lean,
ignorant, &c. As well as 3. Delicate, beautiful. There aresome other mean-
ings which I need not mention, but I fear we shall be unable to come to any
certain or satisfactory conclusion until some competent scholar, who is thoroughly
acquainted with the old Turkish dialects, shall examine this and several other
titles in this Section which are undoubtedly Turkish.

5 Literally, one who gives to swords or armour the fine water, as it is
termed, so much esteemed in the east.

3 ५

730 ` THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

quired of him the reason of his not regarding it. Appre-
h-nsive, he replied : “ My lord, the Sultan, in the first place,
commands his slave to take an office of affliction, while his
humble servant is unable to practise blood-shedding, tor-
ture, extortion, and oppression upon Muslims and subjects.
Let the Sultan be pleased to assign other employment to
his slave.” The Sultan showed great reliance on him [in
consequence] and made Narnil his fief. He served in the
government of that fief for sometime, and, subsequently,
the fief of Baran was assigned to him, and, after that again,
the fief of Sundm was conferred upon him. When the
expedition into Lakhanawati was undertaken, and the
force had reduced Balka, the Khalj, and was on its way
back to the capital, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak
Khan, died at Uchchah [while holding the government of
Sind], and the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
assigned the fief of Uchchah, and the fortress and city of
UOchchah to Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak.

For a considerable period he exercised the government,
and was guardian of the people of that country, and brought
it under his control. When the Sultan passed to the
Creator’s mercy, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, became very
powerful ; and, at that juncture, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan,
the Karlugh, became covetous of the possession of
UOchchah and the Panjab territory, and he arrived before
the gate of the city of Uchchah, from the direction of
Banian® with a large army. Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak,
with a well organized force, in battle array, marched out of
the fortress of Uchchah and encountered them in battle.
Almighty God gave him the victory, and the Karlugh
forces were routed, and retired without gaining their object’.

This, truly, was a very important victory, at this time,
because, at this period, through the decease of Sultan

¢ This is the tract of country so often mentioned in these pages and which
I have already indicated the position of; but it is often written in a very
careless manner [the Calcutta printed text sometimes turns it into Multan],
and this fact has led Thomas into a great error, at page 76 of his ‘‘ PATHAN
KINGS OF DEHLI.” All the references made by him to the printed text in the
foot-note to that page refer to Banian—,», and not to Multan.

7 This, of course, has been omitted under the reign to which it properly
belongs. It was the first occasion on which the Kar-lighs, or Karlughs—the

word is written both ways—invaded the Dihli kingdom after Shams-ud-Din,
I-yal-timish’s decease. See also page 677.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 731

Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, awe and fear of the kingdom
of Hindiistan in [people’s] hearts had sustained detriment,
and enemies had sprung up on ail sides of the empire, and
the vain desire of appropriating its territory began to
trouble their minds, when Almighty God bestowed this
victory on him. The good name of Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-
bak, remained in that country, and in all the territory of
Hindistan his renown was diffused.

Shortly after this victory, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak,
sustained a fall from his horse, and the animal kicked him
in a mortal place, and he was killed. The mercy and for-
giveness of the Almighty be upon him !

V. MALIK SAIF-UD-DIN, I-BAK-I-¥YUGHAN-TAT.

Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-tat, was a Khiti-i
Turk, and was, both externally and internally, adorned
and endowed with divers manly qualities. The august
Sultan [Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish] had purchased him
from the heirs of Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-i-Chust-Kaba ° [of the
tight-fitting vest], and he distinguished him by his intimacy,
and conferred upon him the office of Amir-i-Majlis [Lord
of the Assembly or Council]. After he had performed
good service in that appointment, he was raised to a high
position, and the fief of the district of Sursuti was bestowed
upon him. At the time of this honour being conferred upon
him, he gave directions for the presentation of a horse to each
of the Amirs, Maliks, and Grandees; and this gift caused him
to be remembered, and his acquirement of some influence.

In the year 625 H., at the time that the author found the
Sultan’s camp in the territory of Uchchah of Multan, Malik
Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, was the feudatory of Sursuti, and, in the
presence of the Sultan, he possessed much influence and
intimacy ; and when, after some time, he had done distin-
guished services, the fief of Bihar was entrusted to his
charge. On Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani’s® being deposed from

® This appears to have been the nick-name of two persons who dealt in
slaves, since I-yal-timish himself was sold to Kutb-ud-Dfn, by Jamal-ud-Din-
i-Chust-Kaba.
9 Referred to in the List of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timigh’s Maliks as Prince
of Turkistin, who gave such trouble in the reign of Sultan Raziyyat.
3A 2

732 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

the fief of Lakhanawati, that country was made over to
Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak.

In that territory he displayed great vigour, and captured
several elephants from the country of Bang, and despatched
them to the most sublime Court; and, from the Sultan, he
received the title of Yughan-tat, and his name became
great. He held the government of that country for some
time, and in the year 631 H.’ he died. The Almighty’s mercy
and pardon be upon him!

VI. MALIK NUSRAT-UD-DIN, TA-YASA’I?.

Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa’i, was the slave of the
illustrious martyr, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-
Sam. He was a Turk of short sight, but Almighty God
had adorned him with all manly virtues and humanity, and
he was endowed with great resolution, gallantry, and
vigour, and possessed perfect sense, and sagacity.

At the time that the writer of this TABAKAT, Minhaj-i-
Saraj, attached himself to the sublime Shamsi court, Malik
Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa’1, was the feudatory of Jind [Jhind],
Barwalah, and Hansi. After some time, as he had per-
formed approved services, two years subsequent to the
taking of the fortress of Gwaliyir, the august Sultan
(Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish] entrusted Bhiainah and
Sultan-kot to” his charge, together with the Superin-
tendency‘ of the territory of Gwaliyir, and he received
directions likewise to make Gwéaliyir [the fortress] his

1 Stewart in his ‘‘HIsTORY OF BENGAL” says [page 65] that Sief Addeen
VYugan Tunt [!!] died in 651 H.—a mistake of only swenty years

2 In nearly every copy of the text this word or title is somewhat differently
written ; but the above—_,..)—T4a-yasa’i—seems most correct. In one copy

it is written with vowel points thus god

VAMBERY considers it is a Chinese word, and that it means a writer, or
secretary, but that does not seem applicable here. I think it undoubtedly
Turkish, and it possibly may refer to his shortsightedness, but more probably
to the name of some place. A somewhat similar term occurs in Sharf-ud-
Din, ’Ali’s, History, but written Taighi, but it may be wholly different from
the above.

Its being founded is mentioned in the account of Malik Baha-ud-Tugbril,
at page 545.

4 The word here used is (Ss*—shahnagi—which is rarely used by our
author except with refercnce to those states and territories over which the
Mughals obtained sway. The meaning of Shahnah has been already given.

५

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 733

residence. The contingents of Kinnauj, and Mahir for
Mihar], and Maha’tn were all placed under his control, in
order that he might undertake an inroad into the 12111121
and Chandiri territories. In the year 631 H.*, he accord-
ingly led an army from Gwaliyir towards the Ka4linjar
country, and the Rae of < 2111}21 fled discomfited before
him. He plundered the townships of that territory, and,
in a very short period, obtained vast booty, in such wise,
that, in the space of fifty days, the Sultan’s fifth share was
set down at twenty-five Jaks [of 7itals or dirams ?).

On the return of Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa’1, the
Ranah of Ajar*, Chahar, by name, occupied the route of
the Musalman forces, and blocked up the road in the
narrow parts of [some] deep ravines, and was drawn up
[with his forces], at the head of the road, prepared to
oppose their passage’. Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa’1,
was somewhat weak in body [from sickness ?] at the time,
and he divided his force into three bodies, at the head of
three roads—the first body consisted of the unincumbered
horsemen [under his own command] ; the second body of
the baggage, material, and the followers of the force, with
an Amir in charge; and the third consisted of the booty
and the cattle with an Amir with it also. I heard Nusrat-
ud-Din himself state, saying: “ Through the divine favour,

$ In the account of Ulugh Khan farther on, it is stated that this took place
in 632 H., and Yau is mentioned as well as Kinnauj and the other places just
mentioned ; but 632 H. was the year in which I-yal-timish himself advanced
into Malwah, and took Bhilsin and Ujjain. See under his reign, page 621.

५ This is according to the best copies of the text, which style him, respec-
tively, jie! sail, — S,el sail, and ai,le! भा have the Aamzah denoting
the genitive case—Ranah of Ajar, Ajarki, or Ajarmnah [probably Ajariah
or Achiriah], and state that his name was Chahir. See page 691, and the
account of Ulugh Khan farther on.

9 In his account of Ulugh Khin farther on, our author, in all the oldest
copies, mentions ‘‘the ravines of the river silS—Xardnah or Guaranah”
which, in the more modern copies of the text, is y2——Sindi, This latter
river flows by the fortress of Nurwul, previously referred to at page 690,
bounds the Gwéliyir territory on the east, and falls into the Jin or Yamuna.
In about the direction Nusrat-ud-Din must have taken on his return to Gwili-
yur, this river is about 200 yards broad in the rainy season, and about forty in
the dry, and some two feet deep ; and, at this part of its course, its banks are
steep, and cut into numerous ravines. Whether the Karanah or Garanah and the
Sindi be one and the same river it is difficult to say; but it is not improbable
that the first is its proper name, as Sindi is, of course, derived from 4:-—a
river, and that one and the same river is referred to.

734 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

never in Hindiistan had an enemy seen my back; and, on
that day, that Hindi fellow fell upon me like a wolf upon
a flock of sheep. I divided my force into three bodies in
order that, in the event of the Hindi confronting me and
the unincumbered horsemen, the baggage and war material
and cattle might pass on in safety, and, in case he should
show a desire towards the baggage and war material or
cattle, I, together with the auxiliaries of the true faith,
would come behind him and take satisfaction on_ his
malignity.” The Hindi confronted Malik Nusrat-ud-Din’s
own division, and Almighty God gave him the victory.
The Hindis were routed, and numbers of them sent to
hell, and he returned with his booty to the fortress of
Gwaliyiir in safety.

An anecdote of an occurrence, showing his _ perfect
sagacity, which happened during this expedition, which was
made known [to the author], is here related, that readers
may derive profit therefrom: and that anecdote is as
follows. A milch sheep, from among his flocks, had been
lost for some time—nearly a month and a half—during
this inroad. One day, Malik Nusrat-ud-Din was moving
round the camp among the tents, after the force had been
encamped at that same place a week, and every one had set
up soinething or other to shade himself. Suddenly, during
his perambulation, the bleating of a sheep reached his ear.
He immediately said to his attendants: “That is the bleat-
ing of my sheep.” They proceeded in the direction, and
found that it was as that Amir-i-Ghazi had said: the
animal was there, and they brought back the [stray] sheep
again.

Many other acts of his sagacity and intelligence occurred
during this expedition, and one of them is as follows. At,
the time when the Rae of Kalinjar faced about and retired
routed before him, Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa’t, pur-
sued him. Having succeeded in obtaining a Hindi guide,
he set out, on their track, in pursuit of the fugitive [Hindis]
and pushed on for four nights and days, and part of the
fifth night until half the night had passed, when the Hindi
guide stated that he had lost the road, and was unacquainted
with the route in advance. Malik Nusrat-ud-Din com-
manded so that they sent the Hindi to hell, and began to

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 735

act as guide himself. So they reached some high ground °,
at which place the fugitives had watered, and the cattle of
their army had cast the water and heavy baggage away.
In the victorious army every one said: “It is night and
the enemy near: let it not be that we fall among them.
Their camp must be near by.” Malik Nusrat-ud-Din Ta-
yasa’l dismounted from his horse, and went up round the
place on foot, and examined the water cast away by the
horses of the infidels. He exclaimed [after his examina-
tion]: ‘‘ Be of good cheer, my friends: the force, which is
here and has watered here, is the rearmost column of the
enemy’s army, by this proof. Had it been the van or the
main body, in this place would have been the tracks of the
rest of their army, but, on this places, there are no tracks:
keep up your hearts, for we are on the rear of the enemy !”
With these prognostics of victory he remounted, and, at
dawn the following morning, came up with those infidels,
and sent the whole [!] of them to hell, and captured the
canopy of state, and the standards of the Rae of Kalinjai,
and returned in safety from that expedition ’.

When the reign of the Sultan [Rukn-ud-Din, Firiiz Shah}
terminated, and Malik Ghiyads-ud-Din, Muhammad Shah
{his brother], son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
became the victim of misfortune’, Sultan Raziyyat con-
ferred [the fief of] Awadh upon Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-
४258१ ; and, at the period when Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani,
and Malik Saif-ud-Din, Kiji, advanced to the gate of the
city [of Dihli], and began to act in a rebellious manner, he
set out from Awadh for the sublime Court of Sovereignty
to render his services. Suddenly and unexpectcdly,
Malik Kiji moved against him, and took Malik Nusrat-ud-
Din, Ta-yasa’i, prisoner’. He was overcome by sickness

ठ The untrustworthy Calcutta printed text makes u—a dridge, of Sw
high ground, a height, &c.

9 This important expedition took place during the reign of I-yal-timigh, in
the year after he gained possession of Gwiliyiir, and the year before he took
Bhilsin and Ujjain, but not the least reference is made to it under that
Sultan’s reign, and no reference is made to either Ranah Chiahar nor to the
Rae of Kalinjar. See the account of Ulugh Khan farther on, and page 690,
and note 1.

+ This refers to his rebellion. See page 633.

2 See page 639.

736 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

at the time, and the malady carried him off, and he died.
The mercy of the Almighty be upon him!

VII. MALIK ’IZZ-UD-DIN, TUGHRIL?-I-TUGHAN KHAN.

Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan was a Turk of good
looks and good disposition, and his origin was from Karah ‘
Khita. He was adorned with all sorts of humanity and
sagacity, and graced with many virtues and noble qualities,
and in liberality, generosity, and winning men’s hearts, he
had no equal, in that day, among the [royal] retinue or
military.

When the Sultan [I-yal-timish] first purchased Tughril-
i-Tughan Khan, he made him his Saki-i-Khas [own per-
sonal Cup-bearer]*; and, having served in that capacity for
sometime, he became Sar-Dawat-dar [Chief Keeper of the
Private Writing-case], when, suddenly, he lost the Sultan’s
own jeweled pen-case. The Sultan administered to him a
sound chastisement, but, subsequently, bestowed upon him
a rich dress of honour and made him Chashni-gir [Comp-
troller of the Royal Kitchen]. After a considerable time,
Malik Tughril-i-cTughan Khan became Amir-i-Akhur
[Lord of the Stable], and, subsequently, in 630 H., was made
feudatory of Buda’in. When the territory of Lakhanawati
was made the fief of Malik [Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i]-Yughan-
tat, the country of Bihar was conferred upon Malik Tugh-
ril; and, when Malik Yughan-tat died [in 631 H.], Malik
Tughril-i-Tughan Khan became feudatory of the country
of Lakhanawati, and he brought that territory under his
jurisdiction.

After the decease of the august Sultan [I-yal-timish],
between him and the feudatory of Lakhanawati-Lakhan-
or, I-bak, by name, whom they used to style Aor Khan, a
Turk of great daring and impetuosity, enmity arose, and a

3 For the pronunciation of this Turkish word see note ५ page 544
Tughan, in the Turkish language, is equivalent to the Persian word €. >
species of hawk.

५ Our author writes this Turkish word Kara and Karah indiscriminately.

$ It is worthy of notice regarding these great men of the so-called
‘*PaTHAN” dynasties, that nearly every one of these Maliks were Turkish
Mamliiks or purchased s/aves; but did any one ever hear of an Afghan
or Patan a slave?

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 737

battle took place between them for [the possession of] the
town of Basan-kot of Lakhanawati, within the environs of
the city of Lakhanawati itself. During the engagement,
Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan pierced Aor Khan with an
arrow in a mortal place, and he forthwith died*®. Tughril’s
name became great [in consequence], and both sides of the
country of Lakhanawati—the one part of which they style
Ral [Rarh] which is towards Lakhan-or, and the other is
named Barind [Barindah] on the side of Basan-kot—be-
came one, and came into Malik Tughril’s possession ‘.

When the throne of the kingdom passed to Sultan
Raziyyat, Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan despatched some
persons of note to the sublime Court, and he was dignified
by being honoured with a canopy of state and standards >,
and was paid high honour. He made an inroad into the
country of Tirhut from Lakhanawati, and acquired much
valuable booty

When the throne devolved upon Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din
Bahram Shah, Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan was dis-
tinguished in the same manner, and was in the continual
habit of sending for the service of the sublime Court offer-
ings of great value. After the termination of the Mu’izzi
dynasty, in the beginning of the ’Ala-i reign [the reign of
Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid-Shah], his confidential adviser,
Baha-ud-Din, Hilal, the Siriani [Syrian], instigated him to
take possession of the territory of Awadh, and Karah and
Manik-pir, and An-desah-i-Bala-tar [ Upper-most An-des—
or Urna-desa]*. In the year 640 H., when this author,
with his dependents, and children, set out from the capital,

¢ All this is omitted from the reign in which it took place.

7 This indicates then that at this time there were two great fiefs in this
part —Lakhanawati and Lakhan-or, one on each side of the Ganges, but that,
by way of distinction, as stated above, the Rarh ‘‘ wing” was called Lakhana-
wati-Lakhan-or. See also page 585, and note 5.

8 This is equivalent to acknowledging him as a sovereign, but tributary, of
course. Some few copies have ved standards. He duly publishes this in his
Bihar inscription given in Blochmann’s ‘‘ Contributions,” page 37.

9 That part of Tibbat through which the Sutlaj flows on issuing from the
lake Rawan Hryida, and bounded by the Kailas and Himalaya ridges. In the
time here referred to this name may have been applied to a larger extent of
country, farther to the south-east, now included in Nepal.

In the Calcutta printed text An-desah is turned into ५ i'—andeshah—
‘consideration, meditation, thought,” &c.

738 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Dihli, for Lakhanawati, when he arrived in Awadh, Malik
Tughril-i-Tughan Khan had reached the country of Karah
and Manik-pir. The author, taking his family along with
him, proceeded from Awadh and waited on him; and
Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan remained for sometime in
that vicinity, close upon Awadh, but afterwards returned to
Lakhanawati again. The author accompanied him’.

In the year 641 H., the Rae of Jaj-nagar commenced
molesting the Lakhanawati territory; and, in the month of
Shawwal, 641 H., Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan marched
towards the Jaj-nagar country, and this servant of the state
accompanied him on that holy expedition. On reaching
Katasin’?, which was the boundary of Jaj-nagar [on the
side of Lakhanawati], on Saturday, the 6th of the month
of Zi-Ka’dah, 641 H., Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan made
his troops mount, and an engagement commenced. The
holy-warriors of Islam passed over two ditches, and the
Hindi infidels took to flight. So far as they continued in
the author’s sight, except the fodder which was before their
elephants, nothing fell into the hands of the foot-men of the
army of Islam, and, moreover, Malik Tughril-i-Tughan
Khan’s commands were that no one should molest the ele-
phants, and, for this reason, the fierce fire of battle subsided.

When the engagement had been kept up until mid-day
the foot-men of the Musalman army—every one of them—
returned [to the camp ?] to eat their foud, and the Hindis,
in another direction, stole through the cane jangal, and
took five elephants ; and about two hundred foot and fifty
horsemen came upon the rear of a portion of the Musalman
army*. The Muhammadans sustained an overthrow, and
a great number of those holy warriors attained martyrdom ;
and Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan retired from that place
without having effected his object, and returned to Lakh-
anawati. He despatched the Sharf-ul-Mulk + the Ash’ari,

1 See pages 662 and 663.

2 See note 4, para. 8, page 587.

3 In every copy of the text collated this sentence, like the preceding, is very
defective—no two copies being alike—and, altogether, our author’s account of
this affair seems imperfect. It appears improbable that 250 Hindiis only
should throw a whole army into confusion, in broad daylight.

4 The title of the Malik’s minister probably, not his name. At page 664 it
is stated that Kizi Jalal-ud-Din, who was Kazi of Awadh, was directed to

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 739

to the Court of Sultan ’Al&-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, to solicit
assistance. Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, the Kasani—on whom be
peace !—was deputed, along with the Sharf-ul-Mulk, bear-
ing a rich robe of honour, a canopy of state, a standard
and tent, coupled with [expressions of] much honour and
reverence, to return to Lakhanawati; and the forces of
Hindistan*, under the orders of Kamar-ud-Din, Tamur
Khan-i Ki-rin, who was feudatory of Awadh, moved to-
wards Lakhanawati, by the sublime command of the
Sultan, to operate against the infidels of Jaj-nagar.

In this same year likewise [642 H.], the Rae of Jaj-
nagar ९, in order to avenge the plundering of Katasin, which
had taken place the preceding year, as has been already
recorded, having turned his face towards the Lakhanawati
territory, on Tuesday, the 13th of the month of Shawwél,
642 H., the army of infidels of Jaj-nagar, consisting of
elephants, and payzks [foot-men] in great numbers, arrived
opposite Lakhanawati. Malik Tughril-i-Tughin Khan
came out of the city to confront them. The infidel host,
on coming beyond the frontier of the Jaj-nagar territory,
first took Lakhan-or; and Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Karim-ud-Din,
Laghri’, who was the feudatory of I.akhan-or, with a body of
proceed to Lakhanawati along with the Sharf-ul-Mulk, bearing a red canopy
of state, and a robe of honour, and that they reached Lakhanawati on the 11th
of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 641 H. This is impossible, as the repulse before Katasin
took place cight months after this date. The year must be 642 H. Another
discrepancy is that [page 664], under the reign, it is said that the agent was
sent to the Court, when Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan returned from Kayah
towards Lakhanawati !

$ That is of the Antarbed Do-abah and districts lying immediately east of
the Gang.

6 Mr. Blochmann [‘‘ Contributions to the History and Geography of Bengal,”
page 143, para. 4] is really ८० magnanimous when he says that ‘‘ Regarding
Jajnagar” I Aave ‘‘come to the same conclusion” he ‘‘had.” I beg leave to
state that I HAD come to the conclusion in 1865, when I first made trans-
lations of the history of Bengal from as many works as I could find—eight in
all, I think, or more—and then collected the materials which enabled me to
insert the notes in question in this translation. I hope to publish the fruit of
these translations not Jong hence, with additions since obtained.

The italics noticed in the same ^ Contributions” [note §, page 144] namely,
Jat-nagar, page 592 of my translation, / daresay, do not imply a reference to
Jaj-nagar ; and, further, whether it be a mistake or not, the work I quoted has
the word, and also the account of Kadhah-Katankah. Perhaps Mr. Bloch-
mann will refer to the Ma’dan-i-Akhbar-i-Ahmadi and satisfy himself.

7 He must have succeeded 1I-bak-i-Aor Khan in that fief, under Tugbril-i-
Tughan Khan perhaps. See page 736,

740 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Musalmans, they made martyrs of, and, after that, appeared
before the gate of Lakhanawati®. The second day after
that, swift messengers arrived from above [the Do-abah and
Awadh, &c.] and gave information respecting the army of
Islam that it was near at hand. Panic now took pos-
session of the infidels, and they decamped.

When the army from above reached the gate of Lakh-
anawati, distrust arose between Malik Tughril-i-Tughan
Khan and Malik Tamur Khian-i-Ki-ran, and led to strife ;
and a conflict took place between the two armies of Musal-
mans before the gate of the city of Lakhanawati, and con-
tinued from day-dawn to the early forenoon, when certain
people appealed to them, and the two forces disengaged
from each other, and each returned to its own camp. As
Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan’s own quarters were before
the city gate, by the time he had alighted at his own tent,
the whole of his troops had returned to their own dwellings
within the city, and he remained alone. Malik Tamur
Khian-i-Ki-ran however, on returning to his camp, con-
tinued ready armed as before, when, finding opportunity,
and becoming aware that Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan
was all alone in his tent within his camp, he mounted with
his whole force, and made a dash upon Malik Tughril-i-
Tughan Khan's camp. The latter was under the necessity
of mounting and flying within the city; and this event
took place on Tuesday, the 5th of the month of Zi-Hijjah,
642 H.

On Malik Tughril-i-Tughan 11215 reaching the city,
he employed the author, Minhaj-i-Saraj, and despatched
him out of the city to seek an accommodation and his
safety ; and a truce and compact were entered into between
the two Maliks, under the engagement that Lakhanawati
should be delivered up to Malik Tamur Khan-i-Ki-ran,
and that Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan should proceed to
the Sublime Court, taking along with him his treasures

8 The Jaj-nagar forces must have crossed the Ganges before they could
invest the city of Lakhanawati, if the course of that river was then as it is at
present. For further details of this—for our author appears to have been
totally unable to give the details of one affair in one place—see the account of
Malik Tamur Khin-i-Ki-ran at page 763, where the name of the leader of the
infidels is also mentioned. These are the Mughals of Chingiz Khan referred
to at page 665, and note 8.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 741

and elephants, his dependents and followers’. Under this
agreement, Lakhanawati was delivered up to Malik Tamur
Khian-i-Ki-ran, and Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, in
company with Malik Kara-Kash Khan, Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Sanjar-i-Mah-peshani [of the moon-like brow], and the
[other?] Amirs of the Court’, returned to the sublime
presence. The author, with his family and dependents,
returned to Dihli along with Malik Tughril-i-Tughan
Khan, and the Sublime Court was reached, on Monday, the
14th of the month of Safar, 643 H.’

On Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan’s arrival at Court, he
was distinguished by great honour and reverence, and, in
the [following] month of Rabi-ul-Awwal of that same
year, the territory of Awadh was consigned to him, and he
received much comfort and encouragement.

When the throne of sovereignty acquired additional
glory from [the accession of] the Sultan-i-Mu’azzam,
Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, in the year
644 H., Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan proceeded into
Awadh; and, a short time afterwards, on the night of
Friday, the end of the month of Shawwal of that year, he
passed to the Almighty’s mercy. Of destiny’s wonderful
decrees one was this, that, enmity and contest having
arisen between Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan and Malik
Tamur Khan-i-Ki-ran, and each having seized ° the other’s
territory, Tamur Khan should have died in Lakhanawati,
and Tughan Khan in Awadh [the same night], in such
wise that neither of the two, in this world, was aware of
the other’s death.

On this subject, that prince of mortals of the great

9 The sending of a robe of honour and standards to Tughril-i-Tugban
Khan must have been merely for the purpose of putting him off his guard, and
it must have been previously determined to deprive him of his government.
See pages 665—667.

1 Who had accompanied the troops sent to the relief of Lakhanawati, or,
rather, under pretence of relieving it.

2 See Blochmann’s ‘‘ Contributions” previously referred to, page 38. "Izz-
ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, did not withdraw from Lakhanawati direct
into Awadh, but proceeded to Dihli first, and then, in Nagir-ud-Din’s reign,
proceeded to take charge of the latter fief, as shown immediately under, and at
page 744.

8 Not so, by the writer’s own account: Tughril-i-Tughan Khan’s territory
was seized by treachery, but he had not seized his rival’s.

742 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI-

and of the less, Sharf-ud-Din, the Balkhi, composed a
verse ‘:—
‘On Friday, the end of the month entitled अर्क मढ],
In the year, according to the Arab era, kha, mfm, dal,
Was Tamur Khan’s and Tughan Khan’s march from the world.
This [one] at the beginning of the night went, that at its close *.”

Doubtless, their meeting will have taken place in the
Court of the King of Glory in the everlasting mansion in
the other world. The Almighty’s mercy be upon them!

VIII. MALIK KAMAR.-UD-DIN, KI-RAN-I-TAMUR KHAN-US.-
SULTANI.

Malik Tamur® Khian-i-Ki-ran was a Turk of good
qualities and excellent disposition, and very hasty and
impetuous, prudent and intrepid. His origin was from
Khifchak, and he was good looking, and had a long beard
and mustachios. The Sultan [I-yal-timish], at the outset
[of his career], purchased him of Asad-ud-Din, Mankali,
the brother’s son of Malik Firiiz’, for the sum of fifty

thousand Sultani divams’*.
During the expedition to Chand-wal” [i.e. Chand-war],

4 This paragraph, and these lines may be looked upon as an interpolation,
for they are only contained in some of the more modern copies of the text.

७ The printed text has st— .—but that letter stands for saxty, which is
not correct. A#d—»—stands for 600, mim—,—for 40, and da/—s—for 4=
644 H. The last day of the month is the 2gth.

6 Tamur, in Turkish, signifies iron.

7 In some copies, ‘‘brother” of Malik Ffriz. This is the person who
stands first in the list of the Maliks of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, and
bore likewise the latter Turkish name. See page 625

8 All the old copies have dérams, but the modern ones jzéals.

9 Chand-wal and Chand-war are synonymous. It is, no doubt, the place
referred to at page 470, near which Jai-Chand, Rajah of Kinnauj and
Banaras, was overthrewn by Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mubammad-i-Sam,
Ghiri. Its name even has nearly perished, and Firiizabad has arisen almost
upon its ruins. It is situated about twenty-five miles east of Agrah on the
banks of the Jin or Yamuna. There are other places bearing similar names
which led me to suppose, as stated in note 1, page 470, and, also from the
loose manner in which native writers refer to it, as noticed in para. 5 to note at
page 518, that it was a different place, several authors stating that the battle
above referred to took place ‘‘7# the neighbourhood of Chand-war and Itawah,”
while, at the same time, these two places are some forty or more miles apart.
The ruins of the ancient city of Chand-war cover the surrounding country for
miles round Ftrizibid—masjids, mausoleums, gateways, and other extensive
buildings—indicating the size and importance of the place.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 743

unexpectedly, the son of the Rae of Chand-wal, Laddah,
by name, fell into his hands; and, when he brought him
to the Sultan’s presence, Tamur Khin-i-Ki-ran received
suitable commendation. Subsequently, he became Na’ib
Amir-i-Akhur [Deputy Lord of the Stable], and, at that
time, the Amir-i-Akhur was Tughril-i-cTughan Khan
[No. vii.]. Having obtained this office, he performed
approved service therein; and, when Tughril-i-Tughan
Khan was assigned the fief of Buda’iin, Tamur Khan-i-
Ki-ran became Amir-i-Akhur.

During the reign of Sultan Raziyyat—on whom be the
Almighty’s mercy!—he became feudatory of Kinnauj;
and, during that reign, by the sublime command, he was
despatched towards Gwaliyiir and Malwah in command of
the Islami forces, and, during that expedition, he did good
service’. Subsequently, after he returned to the Court, |
the fief of Karah was entrusted to him, and, in that part,
he undertook many expeditions against the infidels, and
discharged, in a complete manner, all the duties of good
general-ship.

When Malik Nusrat-ud-Din,Ta-yasa’1, who was feudatory
of Awadh, died, the territory of Awadh, with its depen-
dencies, was entrusted to Malik Tamur Khan-i-Ki-ran’s
charge. In that part, as far as the frontier of the Tirhut
territory, he performed great deeds, and obtained pos-
session of vast booty ; and compelled the Raes and Ranas,
and independent [Hindi] tribes’, of that country, to pay
him tribute. On several occasions he plundered the ter-
ritory of Bhati-ghor’, and extorted tribute.

In the year 642 H., when he proceeded to Lakhanawati,
his behaviour towards Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, and
to what point it reached, has been previously recorded in
this Section‘; and, whilst Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan

1 No mention of this expedition occurs in the account of her reign.

2 Here the word wl.!,. referred to in note 7, page 705, is used evidently
as the plural of ८5 The meaning is apparent.

3 Bhati-Ghora, or Bhath-Ghorah—the tract lying on the left bank of the
Son, east of Banaras, in the centre of which Kalinjar is situated.

4 See pages 664—667. His death occurred on the 29th of Shawwal, 644 H.
There is an inscription respecting him in the Bihar Museum, dated in the first
month of this year, which has been published in the Bengal Asiatic Journal
for 1871. That inscription tends to show that he considered himself inde-

744 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

was at the capital, he came, unattended, to Manish ९, and
removed his family, and the whole of his effects, from
Awadh to Lakhanawati. For a period of two years he
continued, in rebellion*, at Lakhanawati, and afterwards
died, on the same night in which Tughril-i-Tughan Khan
took his departure from the world ; and, as the daughter ’
of Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-tat, was his wife,
she duly performed her obligation [to him], and took his
corpse to Awadh from Lakhanawati, and there he was
buried. The Almighty’s mercy be upon him!

IX. MALIK HINDU KHAN, MU-AYYID-UD-DIN, MIHTAR.I-
MUBARAK-UL-KHAZIN-US-SULTANI.

Hindi Khan, Mihtar°-i-Mubarak, was, by origin, of
Mahir*®. When he first came into the august Sultan’s
service, the Sultan [I-yal-timish] purchased him of Fakhr-
ud-Din, the Safahani. Hindi Khan was a man of exceed-
ing good disposition, and of exemplary conduct, of sincere
piety, and, in the Sultan’s service, had attained great inti-
macy with him, and had reached a position of the most

pendent, unless, as is often the case, and as repeatedly shown in this work,
his subordinate has given him titles after his own fancy. This inscription is
also given in Blochmann’s ^" Contributions,” page 37, with a translation.
There is an error in the last however, the words Tugbril-us-Sultani do not
mean Tughril, the Royal, but Tughril, the Sultan’s [I-yal-timish’s] slave—the
Sultant Tugbril-—a term applied to the following Malik and to several of the
great Maliks herein mentioned. See also note *, to page 41 of the same paper.

$ This name is doubtful. In the most reliable copies it is (8 as above,
but in others 'L and jl The Calcutta printed text has (»(i—Tabas.

6 Some copies of the text have (< “~—organization and conduct of
troops—but it is evidently a mistake for . <5 ~—rebellion—from the facts
of the matter, as the inscription previously referred to shows. It was the
stormy period preceding the reign of Sultin Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah.
See the latter part of ’Ala-ud Din, Mas’tid Shah’s reign, pages 667—669.
Some modern copies have ८1, «6—happiness, felicity, &c.

7 In the printed text, the word farzand—child or daughter of—has been left
out, so it may be imagined what a sentence it makes.

8 The word Mihtar signifies greater, and a lord, the head or chief of a
tribe, &c. It is here probably used as a title.

9 If he was originally from Mihir or Mihir, which is probably intended for
the place of that name in the Sagar and Narbadah territories, in Lat. 24° 16’,
Long. 80° 49/—for I know of no place of such name in Turkistan—Hindi
Khan was probably a converted Hindi. This seems to show that there was a
brisk trade carried on in Hindi as well as Turkish slaves.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 745

perfect confidence. Throughout the whole reign of Sultan
I-yal-timish—from the beginning to the close—and the
reign of Sultan Raziyyat likewise, he was honoured and
esteemed, had held the office of Treasurer, and had done
good services. All Sultan I-yal-timish’s slaves who attained
offices in the state, and positions of greatness, were objects
of his regard and affection; and they all looked upon him
as a kind and loving father.

When Hindi Khan first came into the Sultan’s service,
he became Yiiz-ban [Keeper of the hunting leopards], and,
subsequently, he was made Torch-bearer ; and, whilst hold-
ing that office, within the limits of the territory of Baran,
at the time when the Sultan [I-yal-timish] was feudatory
of Baran [before he succeeded to the throne], in the reign
of the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, during a raid
against one of the independent tribes of Hindi infidels,
Hindi Khan Mihtar-i-Mubarak, with the spike of his torch,
unhorsed a Hindi and sent the man to Hell. The Sultan
[afterwards] made him his Tasht-dar [Ewer-bearer], and, in
that capacity, he served for a considerable time.

When the affairs of the kingdom came under the admi-
nistration of the Shamsi dynasty, the Mihtar-i-Mubarak
became Treasurer to Sultan I-yal-timish, but he did not
ever give up the office of Tasht-dar up to the end of the
Sultan’s lifetime, and used, as heretofore, to perform the
duties of personal Ewer-bearer. When the august Sultan
encamped before the preserved fortress of Gwaliyir, and
took that place, this servant of the victorious dynasty,
Minhaj-i-Saraj, during that expedition, for a period of
seven months, in accordance with commands, was in the
habit of delivering a discourse, twice in each week, at the
entrance of the royal pavilion; and, throughout the
month of Ramazan, and on the roth of Z1-Hijjah, and 1oth
of Muharram, the author used to perform the service
daily’. After the fortress was taken possession of, as the
just claims of his priestly duties had been established, the |
administration of all matters of law and religion of that
fortress was entrusted to the author, and this installation
took place in the year 630 H.” This is mentioned because,

1 See page 619. There our author makes a different statement.

2 This appears to have been our author’s first appointment under the
government of Dihli, at least the first one he mentions.

3 ४

746 , THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

at the time of investing the author with the direction of
law affairs, that Mihtar of Mihtars, Mihtar-i-Mubarak,
Hindi Khan himself, was present in the royal treasury,
and treated him with such kindness and encouragement
that this servant of the state was much beholden to him
for such honour on his part. Almighty God reward him,
and have mercy on him!

When the Shamsi reign came to a termination, in the
reign of Sultan Raziyyat, the territory and fortress of
Uchchah was entrusted to Malik Hindi Khin’s charge;
and, when the throne passed to Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Bahram Shah, he returned from that province to the
Court, and the territory of Jalandhar [Jalhandar] was con-
ferred upon him, and there also he died.

X. MALIK IKHTIYAR-UD-DIN, KARA-KASH ° KHAN.I-
AET-KIN.

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Karaé-Kash Khan-i-Aet-kin ^
was from Karah-Khita, and was a man of exceeding
amiable disposition, magnanimous, pure in mind, and
adorned with all manliness and valour, and was one of the
ancient slaves of the Sultan [I-yal-timish]

When the august Sultan first purchased him, he made
him his personal Cup-bearer, and, after he had served in
that capacity for a considerable time, he acquired the fief
of Barihin and Darangawan [Daran-ga-on?]’. Some years
subsequently, he became the Superintendent of the Khialisah
[crown province] of Tabarhindah; and, after that, also
during the reign of the august Sultan, Multan became his
fief, after Malik Kabir Khan ° [Izz-ud-Din, Ayaz-i-Hazar-
Mardah], and his title then became Kara-Kash Khan.

On the expiration of the Shamsi reign, Sultan Raziyyat

3 Also written (> |,3—Kara-Kiish.

+ Some writers give the pronounciation of this word Aytkin, instead of
Aet-kin, but the last, I think, is the most correct. See page 318. Under the
reign he is styled Malik-al-Kabir—the Great Malik.

> I fail to recognize these places satisfactorily. One may be meant for
Dharam-ga-on, a very common name. The words are written— ८9५; —
५८०५-७ 9-- and yyy and ७1909 and 3X,

५ See page 725

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 747

took Lohor from Malik Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz, and made
over to him, in lieu thereof, the fief of Multan, as has been
previously narrated’. What befell Malik Kara-Kash at
Lohor, and his evacuation of that city, during the inroad of
the infidel Mughals and their appearance before Lohor,
will be recorded in the account of the Lohor disaster®. He
[then] had the territory of Bhianah conferred upon him,
and he continued in that part some time. When the reign
of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, came, and the
Maliks revolted, Malik Kara-Kash Khan, with Malik Yiz-
Bak [Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Tughril Khan], came to the capital
and attached themselves to Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah. As Mihtar-i-Mubarak [Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak
Shah, the Farrash], Farrukhi, conspired against the Turk
Maliks and Amirs, he influenced Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Bahram Shah, against Malik Kara-Kash and Malik Yiz-
Bak, and the Sultan imprisoned both of them १.

After the city of Dihli was taken, and the throne passed
to Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, Malik Kara-Kash
Khan, became Amir-i-Hajib, and, shortly afterwards, on
Friday, the 25th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 640 H.,
Bhianah became his fief’. After some time Karah was
assigned to him ; and, from thence, in company with Malik
Tamur Khian-i-Ki-ran, with troops, he marched towards
Lakhanawati, and returned ftom thence along with Malik
Tughril-i-Tughan Khan’.

When the throne of sovereignty acquired beauty and
adornment from the auspicious dignity of the Sultan of the
Universe, Nasir-ud-Dunyad wa ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, in
the year 644 H., Malik Kara-Kash Khan was killed within
the limits of Karah®. The Almighty’s mercy be upon
him !

7 At pages 644 and 727.

® In the account of the Mughal irruption in the next Section. See also
page 655.

® See pages 659 and 761.

1 This must mean that he was restored to that fief again, because, just
before, it is stated that he was made feudatory of Bhianah after the evacuation
of Lahor, and that, from Bhianah, he marched to support Sultan Mu’izz-ud«
Din, Bahram Shah.

> See page 741.

> No particulars of this affair occur anywhere throughout this work,

3B 2

748 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

XI. MALIK IKHTIYAR-UD-DIN, ALTONIAH, OF TABAR-
HINDAH.

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altiniah of Tabarhindah, was
a great Malik, of vast boldness and gallantry, manliness
and energy, lion-heartedness and magnanimity ; and the
whole of the Maliks of that time were unanimous as to his
manliness and valour. At the time of the imprisonment of
Sultan Raziyyat—on whom be peace!—he had fought
encounters with the forces of the disaffected Maliks, in con-
junction with Sultan Raziyyat, and had displayed great
heroism ५

When the august Sultan [I-yal-timish] first purchased
him, he gave him the Sharab-dari [office—the care of the
liquors]*. After some time, as the Sultan had remarked
proofs of manliness depicted upon his brow, he gave him
the office of Sar Chatar-dar [Head of the state canopy-
bearers]; and, when the Shamsi rule came to its termina-
tion, during the reign of Sultan Raziyyat, the fief of Baran
was conferred upon Ikhtiyar-ud-Din. Subsequently,
Tabarhindah* was given to him; and, at the time when
the hearts of the Turk Maliks and Amirs, who were the
slaves of the Shamsi dynasty, became changed towards
Sultan Raziyyat, on account of the favour Jamal-ud-Din,
Ya-kit, the Abyssinian, had found with her, the Amir-i-
Hajib, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-i-Aet-kin, and Malik
Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altiniah, of Tabarhindah, were connected
by a firm compact of unanimity and friendship, and bonds
of intimacy ; and, by virtue of this fabric of union, Malik
Aet-kin, secretly, gave intimation of this change to the
latter. Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altiniah, in the fortress of
Tabarhindah, began openly to rebel, and withdrew his head
from the yoke of obedience to that Sultan.

Sultan Raziyyat, in the month of Ahar’, moved from the

4 The ambitious and rebellious conduct of himself and his colleague in
sedition was the cause of her downfall, as is stated under.

$ Not necessarily intoxicating.

* This was a XAdiisah district, as mentioned at page 746.

7 Ahay, from the Sanskrit— WT 81S —the third solar month of the Hindis—
June—July. The Mubammadans, as early as this, it seems, had begun to use
the names of the Hindi months. Under her reign it is said to have been the

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 749

capital towards Tabarhindah with the [contingents] com-
prising the centre’ [division] of her forces, as has been
related [under her reign]; and, when Sultan Raziyyat was
seized and imprisoned, and the Maliks and Amirs returned
to the capital again °, and the throne of sovereignty came
to Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din,
Altiiniah, contracted marriage with Sultan Raziyyat, who
was in duress [under his charge in the fort of Tabarhindah],
and, by reason of that union, began to evince contumacy '.
When Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin [Altiniah’s con-
federate], was assassinated, and Malik Badr-ud-Din-i-
Sunkar, the Rimi, became Amir-i-Hajib, Malik Ikhtiyar-
ud-Din, Altiniah, brought forth Sultan Raziyyat from the
fortress of Tabarhindah, assembled forces, and marched
towards the capital. In the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwéal,
however, they retired unsuccessful. Sultan Raziyyat was
taken prisoner within the limits of Kaithal; and Malik
Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altiiniah, was taken in the Mansir-pir *
district, and was martyred by Hindis on Tuesday, the 25th
of Rabi-ul-Akhir, 638 प्त. The Almighty’s mercy be
upon him!

XII. MALIK IKHTIYAR-UD-DIN, AET-KIN.

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, was a Karah-Khita-1, a
well-favoured Turk, a man of good disposition and of hand-
some countenance, dignity, wisdom, and sagacity.

The august Sultan [I-yal-timish] purchased him from
Amir I-bak, Sanna-i‘, and he had served the Sultan long in

goth of Ramazan 637 H.—May, 1239, A.D. It was a great object with the
rebels to make Sultan Raziyyat move in the hot season.

8 See note 3, page 634.

» They lost no time, for on the 28th of the same month they set up Mu’izz-
ud-Din, Bahram Shih.

1 Contumacy tuwards the usurper of her throne. See under Raziyyat’s
reign, page 645, and 647. His confederates in sedition against Raziyyat had
now been removed from the scene and their ambitious designs frustrated, and
therefore Altiiniah thought it to his advantage to espouse her cause.

2 West of Dihli, and north-west of Kaithal, Lat. 30° 21/ Long. 76° 5/.

3 These events are related differently under Raziyyat’s reign, which see.

+ In some copies Nisiwi—native of Nisa, and, in the list of Maliks at
the beginning of the Nasiri reign, page 673, there is a Malik Saif-ud- Din,
I-bak-i-Balka Khan, styled, Sand-i, but not the person here referred to. He
may have been the son of the above.

750 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRL.

every office and degree, and become deserving of royal
kindness and dignities of greatness. In the beginning of
the Sultan’s reign, he was made Sar-i-Jan-dar [Head of the
Jan-dars]*, and, after some time, as proofs of merit were
conspicuous upon his brow, Mansir-pir was given to him in
fief. Sometime after, Kijah*® and Nandanah were en-
trusted to his charge, and, on that frontier, he performed
distinguished services. When the period of sovereignty
devolved upon Sultan Raziyyat, she summoned him to the
Court, and assigned him the fief of Buda’iin. After some
farther period, he attained the dignity of Amir-i-Hajib, and
performed approved services before the throne; but, on
account of the favour which Jamal-ud-Din, Ya-kit, the
Abyssinian, had acquired, the whole of the Maliks and
Amirs, Turks, Ghiris, and Tajiks 7, were withdrawing from
their attendance on the Court of Sultan Raziyyat, and
were afflicted in heart, particularly Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din,
Aet-kin®, the Amir-i-Hajib, as has been recorded in the
account of Sultan Raziyyat. For this reason, Jamal-ud-
Din, Ya-kit, was martyred, and the throne passed to
Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah १.

On the day of rendering fealty at the Kishk [the

6 In some copies, Sar-i-Jamadar [Sar-i-Jamah-dar?] or Head of the
Wardrobe, and, in one good copy, Shart-badar.

6 This place is generally mentioned in connexion with Banian and the
Karligh Turks. The word might be spelt with g—Gujah. The majority of
copies and the oldest have sle,S but one has ` and a second s'¢,5 The

likewise may de intended for ह See list of victories, page 627.

7 At pages 304 and 333, our author says the Ghiiris are Tajiks, or Taziks
—i. €. descendants of Arabs born in ’Ajam—but here he evidently applies the
term as it originally means, and Ghiris to natives of Ghiir only. The com-
pilers of ‘‘ Pathdn” dynasties may see that such a term as theirs never occurs
in any Muhammadan History. Tajiks are not Scythians, I beg leave to say.

8 The ‘‘affliction” that appears to have troubled him was ambition and
sedition, as may be gathered from the statement in the account of Malik
Altiniah, just related, and a little farther on.

® The modern copies of the text have an additional sentence and a verse
here, but it is evidently an interpolation: they are as follows :—‘‘ As
sovereignty turned its face from Sulfan Raziyyat, on this account, a wag gives
these lines :—

‘ Sovereignty from her robe’s skirt turned away,
When it perceived black dust on the hem thereof,’”

Our author, who was resident at her Court, does not attempt to make us believe
that Sultan Raziyyat was guilty of any criminal familiarity with the Abyssinian,
although more modern writers do insinuate it, but, I believe, without reason.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 751

Castle], the royal residence, when they seated the [new]
Sultan on the throne of the kingdom, and the Maliks,
Amirs, ’Ulama, Sadrs, and the Chiefs of the troops and
Grandees of the capital were assembled together in the
sublime audience hall for the purpose of the public render-
ing of fealty', all pledged their allegiance to the sovereignty
of Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, and the Deputy-ship
[Lieutenantcy] of Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin ; and he
stipulated with Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, that,
as he, the Sultan, was young in years, he should, for the
period of one year, leave the administration of the affairs of
the realm to his slave [Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin], and that
the Sultan should issue an order in accordance with all this *.
His petition having been complied with, Malik Ikhtiyar-

ud-Din, Aet-kin, in union with the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-
Din, the Wazir, proceeded to administer the affairs of the
kingdom. He requested [permission] from the Sultan to
assume the waudat and to have an elephant. He took a
sister of the Sultan to wife, and the whole of the affairs of
the country appertained to कणा From these circum-
stances jealousy entered into the heart of the Sultan, and,
secretly, several times he plotted against him, to get rid of
him, but did not succeed, until, on Monday, the 8th of the
month of Muharram, 638 H. They related on this wise,
that the Salar [chief, leader], Ahmad-i-Sa’d—the Almighty’s
mercy be upon him!—came secretly to the Sultan's
presence and made a representation, in consequence of
which intoxicating drink was given to several Turks, and
he [the Sultan] gave directions to those inebriated Turks,
who descended from the upper part [upper apartments] of
the Kasr-i-Safed [White Castle], and came down in front of
the dais in the Audience Hall*, and with a wound from a
knife martyred Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin®, They

1 On Sunday, the 11th of Shawwédl, 637 H.

2 The period for which he was to act is not mentioned under the Sultan's

Ign.
. 3 See under Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah’s reign. There it is stated that
he assumed the triple nauéat, and stationed an elephant at his gate. The
Sultan’s sister had previously been married to a Kazi’s son. See page 650.

4 Where Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, as Deputy, would be transacting state

affairs.
$ This is related in a very different manner under the reign, which see, at

page 651.

752 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

inflicted several wounds on the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-
Din, the Wazir, but he got away from them, wounded as
he was, and made his escape.

XIII. MALIK BADR-UD-DIN, SUNKAR®-I-ROMI.

Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, was a Rimi fof Rim—
Rimiliah] by origin, and some of the trustworthy have
related after this manner, that he was the son of a Musal-
man and had fallen into slavery; but he was a man of
exceedingly good disposition, with comeliness and dignity,
of admirable morality, humble, and endowed with kindness
and laudable qualities for winning men.

When the Sultan [I-yal-timish] first purchased him, he
became Tasht-dar [Ewer-bearer], and, after he had per-
formed that office for some time, he became Bahlah-dar
[Bearer of the Privy Purse]. Subsequently, he became
Shahnah’ [Superintendent] of the Zarrad Khanah of
Buda'iin®; and, after some farther time, he rose to be
Na-ib Amir-i-Akhur [Deputy Lord of the Stable], and
served the Sultan in every capacity, and did approved ser-
vices. After he became Amir-i-Akhur, he used never to
be absent from the gate of the royal stable for a moment
save through unavoidable necessity ; and, whether on the
move or stationary, he used to be always present in
attendance at the threshold of sovereignty. Whilst the
fortress of Gwaliyiir was being invested, he was pleased to
show such goodness and countenance towards the writer of
these words, and to treat him with such honour and respect,
that the impression of such benevolence will never be
effaced from his heart. May the Almighty have mercy
on him!

When the sovereignty passed to Sultan Raziyyat, the
fief of Buda’iin was given him; and, in the year 638 H.’,
at the time that Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, was

9 Sunkar, in the Rimi [Turkish] dialect, is said to signify a black-eyed
falcon, which lives to a great age, and to have the same meaning as Shunghar
or Shunkar.

7 See note ‘, page 732.

® Whilst I-yal-timish held that fief before he came to the throne. The
office was the same as that of Sar-i-Jan-ear. ee note 7, page 603.

® On the 8th of Mubarram, 638 प

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 753

assassinated, in the reign of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah, the latter summoned Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar,
from Buda’in, and conferred upon him the office of Amir-i-
Hajib. When Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altiniah, of Tabar-
hindah, along with Sultan Raziyyat, resolved to march
upon the capital, and they arrived in the vicinity of Dihli,
in the quelling of that sedition, Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar,
performed excellent services ; but, after a short time, dis-
agreement arose between him and the Khwajah, Muhazzab-
ud-Din, the Wazir, through a trifling cause which it be-
hoveth not to mention. This irritation continued to
increase, and, on this account, the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-
Din’, incited the Sultan against him, and the Sultan’s con-
fidence in Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, departed, and his
faith in the Sultan likewise ceased. He [Badr-ud-Din
Sunkar] convoked the great men of the capital, for the pur- _
pose [of discussing] a change in the government, at the
mansion of Sayyid Taj-ud-Din, Misawi, on Monday, the
14th’? of the month of Safar, 639 H. The Khwajah,
Muhazzab-ud-Din, gave intimation to the Sultan of this
circumstance, and the Sultan mounted, and called upon
Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, to give up his intentions®.
He joined the Sultan; and, on that same day, he was sent
off [on his way] to Buda’in.

After some time, the decree of destiny having gone forth,
it brought him back to the capital again, without having
received orders to return, and he came to the city of Dihli,
and alighted at the dwelling of Malik Kutb-ud-Din
[Husain, son of ‘Ali, the Ghiri]—on whom be the
Almighty’s mercy!—thinking that perhaps, under his pro-
tection, he might obtain mercy. A mandate was issued
from the sovereign’s Court so that they seized him, and he
was cast into prison.e He continued in imprisonment and
confinement for some time, and, in the end, on the night of

1 This is the ^" upright officer” in ELLtoT, referred to in note 6, page 641.

2 Some copies here, as well as under the reign, disagree about this date.
Some have the 1oth, and some, the 17th, but two of the best copies have here,
as well as previously, the 14th of Safar.

3 The particulars of this affair have been already given under the reign,
pages 652 and 653. Here likewise is additional proof, were any required, to
show who the parties were, and who betrayed Malik Badr-ud-Din,
Sunkar.

754 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Wednesday, the 14th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal +,
639 H., he attained martyrdom’. The Almighty’s mercy
be upon him!

XIV. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, SANJAR-I-KIK-LUK.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk, was a thorough
man, and his native country was Khifchak. He was a
person of vast energy, manliness, sagacity, stateliness,
gallantry, and valour, and in all endowments he had
reached the acme. He was of great rectitude and con-
tinence, and no intoxicating drink was ever allowed to
come near him.

The august Sultan [I-yal-timish] had purchased him
from the Khwajah, Jamal-ud-Din-i-Nadiman ; and, in the
beginning of the Sultan's reign, he became Jama-dar
[Keeper of the Wardrobe]; and, after some time, he
became Shahnah ° [Superintendent] of the Stable, and in
every department he performed distinguished services for
the Sultan.

When the Shamsi reign came to a termination, and the
throne devolved on Sultan Raziyyat, Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Sanjar-i-Kik-luk, became feudatory of Baran, and was
appointed to proceed at the head of a body of troops to-
wards the fortress of Gwaliyir, and in Sha’ban, 635 H., the
writer of these words, the servant of the victorious dynasty,
Minhaj-i-Saraj, in company with Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-
i-Kik-luk, came out of the fortress of Gwaliyir’ and pro-
ceeded, and presented himself at the Court of Sultan
Raziyyat. On the road Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar, showed

+ See note 8, page 654.
$ There must have been some reason why he returned to the capital—pro-

bably to sue for pardon in person—and our authorécould, evidently, have said
more, had he chosen to do so. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ’Ali, the
Ghiri, is the same venerable chief as mentioned, at pages 658 and 661. He
was one of the greatest of I-yal-timish’s Maliks, and his name is entered in
the list of them at the end of his reign. He too was made away with, in some
mysterious manner, during the reign of that paragon of perfection, according
to our author, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, in 653. The events, which
induced him to seek an asylum in Hind, will be found in the account of the
Mughal irruption in the next Section.

® See note ‘, page 732.

7 See page 643, and note 4.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 755

such goodness towards the author as cannot be expressed.
At the time of removing from Gwaliyir he carried two
chests of books, the private property of this servant, upon
one of his own camels, and brought them to Maha’in, and,
upon other occasions, had treated the author with manifold
kindness—May the Almighty make him be acceptable, and
have mercy upon him!

On his reaching the capital again, Malik Taj-ud-Din, San-
jar, became feudatory of the district of Sursuti ; and, when
the throne of sovereignty came to Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah, he performed abundant services. On the termina-
tion of the Mu’izzi reign, and the throne passing to ’Ala-ud-
Din, Mas’tid Shah, he became feudatory of Buda’iin’; and,
in the year 640 H., he overthrew the independent [Hindi]
tribes’ of Kathehr of Buda’in, and performed many ex-
ploits against the infidels, and founded Jami’ Masjids in
several places, and established pulpits for the Khatibs'.
He assembled a numerous body of forces—8o000 horse and
foot, besides payzks with horses ?—and his determination
was to lead a force towards Kalinjar and Mahobah, and
reduce that tract of country to subjection. A certain
party [however] began to be envious of the number of his
following, the quantity and efficiency of his war material,
the greatness of his power, the awe in which he was held,
and his. intrepidity in leading troops. The deceitful
promptings of the spirit of devilry moved them, so that they
prepared some poison placed in a betel leaf and adminis-
tered it to him, and disease of the bowels supervened, and,
from that disorder, in a few days, he joined the Almighty’s
mercy. May the Most High God accept, in behalf of that
amiable Malik, in repayment of the many debts of grati-
tude he owed him, the prayers of this frail one!

One among those debts of gratitude due to him is this.
In the year 640 H., when the author resolved upon leaving

ॐ In the oldest copy of the text the name of this city and district is always
written ७ॐ1 ~ Budaniin—the middle # is nasal, and this is the correct mode of
writing the word.

9 There seem to have been numbers of the Mew tribe in that part in those
days.

' The preacher who pronounces the Khutbah already explained.

> All the copies of the text are alike here—mounted payiks is a novel term

I think—considering that the word means foot-man.

756 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

the capital city of Dihli, on a journey to Lakhanawati » and
sent off his family and dependents, in advance, towards
Buda’iin, that Malik of excellent disposition assigned a
stipend for his family and children, and treated them with
all sorts of honour and reverence. Five months after-
wards, when the author, following after his family, reached
Buda’tin, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar, bestowed upon him so
many gifts, and treated him with such honour as cannot
be contained within the area of writing. He was pleased
to assign the author a fief witha residence at Buda’in,
together with ample benefits and favours; but, as destiny,
and the means of livelihood, was attracting him to the
country of Lakhanawati, and the decree of fate was carry-
ing him, the writer proceeded thither. May Almighty God
accept in his favour the kindness [towards the author] of
that Malik of good disposition !

XV. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, SANJAR-I-KURET KHAN ¢.

Malik Kuret Khan was a Turk of Khifchak, of great
manhood and courage, energy and wisdom, and among
warriors, for warlike accomplishments, he was the peerless
in all the ranks of the army of Islam ; and, in horsemanship
and skill in arms, he had no equal. For example, he would
have two horses under saddle, one of which he would ride,
and the other he would lead after him, and thus used to
dash on, and, whilst the horses were galloping, he would
leap from this horse to that with agility, would return to
this first one again, so that, during a gallop, he used several
times to mount two horses. In archery he was so skilful
that no enemy in battle, and no animal in the chase used
to escape his arrow. He never used to take along with
him into any Shikar-gah [chase] either leopard, hawk, or
sporting dog: he brought down all with his own arrow;
and in every fastness in which he imagined there would be
game he would be in advance of the whole of his retinue.

3 Our author was evidently unable to remain at Dihli, in safety, after the
attack made upon him by the Khwajah Muhagzab-ud-Din’s creatures, and
hence resolved to retire foratime. See under the reign of 'Ala-ud- Din, Mas’ad
2021, pages 659 to 662.

* This is the only Malik among twenty-five who was not a slave.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 757

He was the Shahnah [Superintendent] of rivers ° and vessels ;
and this author had a great regard and affection for him.
May Almighty God immerse him in forgiveness! When
the Turks of the [late] Sultan [I-yal-timish] first rose
against the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, the Wazir, on
Wednesday, the 2nd of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal,
640 H., the ring-leader of the party in that outbreak was
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kuret Khan; and a slave of
the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, Mihtar Jatta [by name],
a Farrash [carpet-spreader, &c.], wounded the Malik on
the face with a sword in such manner that the mark of it
ever after remained ५.

After the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, was put to death,
Malik Sanjar-i-Kuret Khan became Shahnah [Superinten-
dent] of the elephants, and, afver that, was made Sar-i-
Jan-dar [Head of the Jan-dars]. Subsequently, he was
made feudatory of Buda’iin, and, some time after that again,
obtained the fief of Awadh. In that part he undertook
many holy expeditions against infidels, achieved numerous
gallant exploits, and reduced several powerful independent
[Hindi] tribes. From Awadh he proceeded into Bihar
and plundered that territory. Suddenly, when before the
preserved city of Bihar, an arrow struck him in a mortal
place, and he attained martyrdom’. The mercy of the
Almighty be upon him!

XVI. MALIK SAIF-UD-DIN, BAT KHAN.-I-I-BAK, THE KHITA.!I
Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat Khan-i-I-bak, the Khita-i, was a

® The word used is: ,s¢—ocean, sea, great river, which last meaning must
be intended here, as the Dihli kings had no more to do with the sea and sea-
going vessels than Sher Shah the Afghan had, who is said, by a modem
translator, to have ‘‘ built great ships to convey Pilgrims to Makkah,” by land,
possibly.

© It was when the “‘upright officer”’—the Khwajah, met with his deserts
in the plain of the Rani’s Zawz, or reservoir.

7 From this it is apparent that, after the fall of the Khalj dynasty, and the
death of I-yal-timigsh, Bihar could not have remained in Musalman hands.
We hear of the fief of Karah, Manik-piir, Awadh, and Lakhanawati, but never
of Bihar, which must have been recovered by the Hindi in the same way as
K4linjar, Mahobah, and other places which, previously, our author says, were
conquered, and as mentioned in the lists of victories of some of the Sultans.
The particulars respecting this chief’s death before Bihar, which would have
been so interesting to us, our author either considered not worth mentioning,
or has purposely suppressed.

7५58 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

person of very excellent qualities, gentle, humble, and of
exemplary piety, and, in skill and warlike accomplishments,
had become a master, and for manliness and sagacity was
famed.

The august Sultan [I-yal-timish] purchased him in the
beginning of his reign, and he became Sar Jama-dar [Head
Keeper of the Wardrobe]. Subsequently, in the reign of
Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, he became Sar-i-Jan-dar
[ Head of the Jan-darsj *®, and Kuhram and Samanah became
his fief. Afterwards he obtained the fief of Baran, and was
appointed to proceed at the head of [a body of] forces for
the purpose of taking possession of the territory of Uchchah
and Multan®. During that expedition, one of his sons, who,
at the very outset of his youth, had become a proficient in
manliness and skill, together with his horse, was drowned
in the river Sind.

Some time after his return from thence, during the reign
of the Sultan of Sultans, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa _ ud-Din,
Mahmiid Shah, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, the Khita-i,
became Wakil-i-Dar [Representative in Dar-bar], and, in
the service of the Sublime Court, performed distinguished
services *.

He served for a considerable time during the Sultan's
reign, and during the expedition to Santir he suddenly
sustained a fall from his horse and was killed*. The mercy
and pardon of the Almighty be upon him!

® See the printed text : the editors are sorely puzzled here.

9 This expedition is not referred to under the reign, but probably has refer-
ence, in some way, to the advance of the Dihli forces to the Biah, the Mughals
having appeared before Uchchah mentioned at page 667. Malik Saif-ud-Din,
I-bak, was probably sent to Uchchah to take charge of it after the death of
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr, son of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz,
mentioned at page 727.

There are two other persons named Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, an account of one
of whom has been given at page 729, and the other is Ulugh Khan’s brother,
an account of whom will be found farther on.

1 See page 699. He appears to have become Wakil-i-Dar, when ’Imad-ud-
Din-i-Rayhin was disgraced, from what is stated in the account of Ulugh
Khan farther on, in which the events of this period are much more detailed
than under the different reigns.

2 On Sunday, the 6th of Rabf’-ul-Awwal, 655 H., the 12th year of Sultan
Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid 52205 reign.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 759

XVII. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, SANJAR-I-TEZ KHAN.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan, is a Karakhi [of
Karakh] *, and is exceedingly impetuous, manly, sagacious,
and intelligent, and is endowed with many excellent quali-
_ ties, and numberless worthy habits. He is famed for his
valour and military talents, and distinguished for his amiable
disposition.

The august Sultan [I-yal-timish] purchased him; and,
in the reign of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, he
became Amir-i-Akhur. Subsequently, in the reign of
Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, he was made Na-ib
Amir-i-Hajib* [Deputy Lord Chamberlain] and Jhanjhanah
was made his fief ; and, when the Khan-i-Mu’azzam, Ulugh
Khian-i-A’zam, in felicity, proceeded towards Nag-awr,
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan, who was particularly
devoted to his interest and friendship, received charge of
the fief of Kasmandi* and Mandianah, of the country of
Hindistan, and there he continued ‘some time. When the
Khin-i-Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, again joined the
Court, Malik Tez Khan again returned to the capital, and
Baran was made his fief, and there he remained a consider-
able time.

In the year 654 H., he became Wakil-i-Dar [ Represen-
tative in Dar-bar] to the sovereign of Islam, and obtained
the fiefof Buda’in. Since Malik Kutlugh Khan ° remained
in Awadh [as feudatory], contrary to the commands of the
Sublime Court, and, with the forces of Hindistan advanced

> Karkh is the name of a village near Baghdad, but the name of this place
is pronounced Karakh, with the difference of a vowel point. It is the name of
a place [township] in Mawar-un-Nahr.

‘ In Rajab, 647 H., shortly after the marriage of Ulugh Khan’s daughter to
the Sultan.

$ A district in Awadh, a few miles N.W. of Lakhnau, also written
Kasmandhi in some copies of the text.

6 Who married Sultan Nasir-ud-Din’s mother, and who appears to have
held the fief in conjunction with her husband. These matters are related in
quite a different way under the reign of Nasir-ud-Din, page 703, There our
author says that Malik Bak-Tamur, the Rukni [i.e. of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din,
एप Shah’s, reign] was sent from the capital to expel Kutlugh Khan from
Awadh, and that Bak-Tamur was defeated and slain ; and that, upon this,
the Sultan had to take the field with Ulugh Khan. See also in the account of
(ण्ट Khan farther on, where these events are again differently related.

760 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

towards Buda’iin, Malik Tez Khan, at the head of a body
of troops, was nominated, along with Malik Bak-tam-i-Aor
Khan, to march from the capital for the purpose of repelling
the troops of Hindustan. When the two armies met within
the limits of Sihra-mii’, Malik Tez Khan was under the
necessity of retiring, and he returned to the capital again.
The fief of Awadh was now given to him, and he proceeded
into that part, and brought that territory under his control ;
and gave the independent communities of infidels of
Hindistan a thorough chastisement, and extorted tribute
from them.

Malik Tez Khan returned to the sublime presence in
conformity with orders, and, at all times, kept the neck of
service within the yoke of obedience; and, in the year in
which this history was written, namely the year 658 H., he
returned to the capital in conformity with the sublime
command, and by the counsel of the Khan-i-Mu’azzam,
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, at the head of the [contingents
forming the] centre [division] of the forces, and those at
the capital’, marched towards the Koh-payah of Mewat, and
performed distinguished services, and returned again to the
presence of the Court, the asylum of the universe.

On a second occasion ’, in attendance at the illustrious
stirrup of the Khan-i-Mu'azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, he
again proceeded to the Koh-payah of Mewat on an expe-
dition and holy war against the Hindis, and displayed
great gallantry and activity. On his return to the capital,
he was distinguished by being presented with ample
honours; and he returned again towards [his fief of]
Awadh. May the Almighty God preserve and continue
the servants of the Nasir1 dynasty in power and dominion.
Amin!

7 A place west of the Ghograh river, in Lat. 28° 19’, Long. 80° 24/, the
Sera-Mow of the Indian Atlas.

8 The available troops at the capital probably. The 4a/6—or centre con-
tingents forming it—has been explained in a previousnote. See also the latter
part of the year 657 H., under Nasir-ud-Din’s reign, page 714.

9 Our author ends his history, under Nasir-ud-Din’s reign, with the force
leaving upon this expedition, on the 13th of Safar, 658 H., and the events of
the following day. These operations, on this occasion, were against the Mew
or Mewra. See page 715, and in the account of Ulugh Khan farther on,
where these events are related in a totally different manner.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 763

XVIII. MALIK IKHTIYAR-UD-DIN, YOZ-BAK-I-TUGHRIL

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, was a
native of Khifchak, and the slave of the august Sultan,
Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, I-yal-timish ; and during the
investment of the preserved fortress of Gwaliyiir he was Na-
ib Chashni-gir [Deputy Comptroller of the Royal Kitchen].
When Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, सिट Shah, came to the
throne, the office of Amir.i-Majlis [Lord of the Council]
was entrusted to Malik Yiiz-Bak, and he was confirmed
therein. Subsequently, the Shahnagi | Superintendency ]
of the elephants was assigned to him; and, during this
reign, he became especially distinguished by the Sultan’s
intimacy and favour.

When the Turkish slaves of the Sultan broke out into
rebellion in the plain of Tara’in ', and a number of grandees,
such as Taj-ul-Mulk, Muhammad [ Mahmiid?], the Secretary,
Baha-ud-Din, Hasan [ Husain ?] -i-Ash’ari, Karim-ud-Din-
i-Zahid [the Recluse], and Nizim-ud-Din, the Shafurkant,
were put to death, one of the ringleaders of the faction
was Malik Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan. °

When the throne came to Sultan Raziyyat, he was made
Amir-i-Akhur [Lord of the Stable], and on Sultan Mu’izz-
ud-Din, Bahram 9112115, ascending the throne, and when,
subsequently, a party of the Turkish Maliks and Amirs
invested the city of Dihli*, Malik Yiz-Bak, along with
Malik Kara-Kash, came into the city and attached them-
selves to Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah’s party ^ on
Tuesday, the last day of the month of Sha’ban, 639 H.,
and, upon several occasions, rendered approved service.
Mihtar-i-Mubarak Shah, Farrukhi, who had acquired entire
power over the Sultan, and had caused the Turkish Maliks
and Amirs to be expelled from the capital, instigated the
Sultan in such manner that he seized Malik Yiiz-Bak and

1 The scene of Rae Pithora’s victory over the forces of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Mubammad-i-Sam, and of his own total overthrow in the following
year—the present Talawaygi.

2 See under the reign at page 635.

3 See the account of Malik Kara-Kash Khan, page 747.

4 See under the reign, pages 658 and 659.

762 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik Kara-Kash, and they were imprisoned* on Wed-
nesday, the 9th of the month of Ramazan, 639 H. When
the city was taken, on Tuesday, the 8th of the month of
Zi-Ka’dah, Malik Yiiz-Bak was liberated °.

When Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, ascended the
throne, Tabarhindah was entrusted to his charge, and,
subsequently, Lohor was made his fief. There he con-
tinued some time, when a feud arose between him and
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad of Bindar’, and, subse-
quently, he began to rebel against the Court, for rashness
and imperiousness were implanted in his nature and con-
stitution, until Ulugh Khan-i-Mu’azzam, unexpectedly,
brought him to the Court, and he was made much of.
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam likewise made a representation for
the royal consideration so that Malik Yiz-Bak was distin-
guished by the Sultan’s favour, and his disobedient conduct
was pardoned. Subsequently, for some time, Kinnauj was
his fief, when he again began to act in a contumacious
manner, and Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain [son of ’Ali, the
Ghiri], on whom be peace!—was despatched from the
capital, at the head of a body of troops, against him. He
reduced Malik Yiiz-Bak to duty and obedience, and brought
him back ‘to the sublime Court again ९.

After some time had passed, Awadh was entrusted to
his charge. When he again returned to the capital, the
territory of Lakhanawati was made overtohim®. After he
went to that part, and brought that country under his
jurisdiction, hostility arose between him and the Rae of
Jaj-nagar. The leader of the forces of Jaj-nagar was a

° See page 747.

6 Malik Kara-Kash was liberated at the same time.

7 The same person, no doubt, who is styled Cha-iish, or Pursuivant, in the
list of I-yal-timish’s Maliks at page 626.

8 There is nothing of all this referred to either under the reign of Sultan
’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’tid Shah, Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, or in the account of Ulugh
Khan.

9 This also is not mentioned under the two last reigns. STEWART, in his
‘*HisToRY OF BENGAL,” page 65, states that ‘‘Ikhtyar Addeen Toghril
Khan, Mulk [५५८६ signifies a country] Yuzbek,” succeeded ^“ Sief Addcen
Yugan Tunt,” who died in 651 H., as governor of Bengal, but, as he makes
a mistake of only twenty years respecting the death of Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-
Yughan-Tat, it may be imagined what dependence can be placed upon the
statements in that work.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 763

person, by name, Saban-tar (Sawan-tara 2] "१ the son-in-
law of the Rae, who, during the time of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din,
Tughril-i-Tughan-Khan, had advanced to the bank of
the river’ of Lakhanawati, and, having shown the greatest
audacity, had driven the Musalman forces as far as the gate
[of the city] of Lakhanawati*, In Malik Tughril Khan-
i-Yiiz-Bak’s time, judging from the past, he [the Jaj-nagar
leader] manifested great boldness, and fought, and was.
defeated. Again, another time, Malik Tughril Khan-i-
Yiiz-Bak fought an engagement with the Rae of Jaj-nagar,
and again came out victorious.

On a third occasion °, Malik Yiiz-Bak sustained a slight
reverse, and a white elephant, than which there was no
other more valuable in that part, and which was ruttish, got
out of his hands in the field of battle, and fell into the
hands of the infidels of Jaj-nagar.

The following year, however, Malik Yiiz-Bak asked
assistance from the Court of Dihli, and, then, marched an
army from Lakhanawati into the territory of Umurdan,
and, unexpectedly, reached the Rae’s capital, which city
[town] they style Umurdan‘. The Rae of that place
retired before Malik Yiiz-Bak, and the whole of the Rae’s
family, dependents, and followers, and his wealth, and
elephants, fell into the hands of the Musalman forces.

On his return to Lakhanawati, Malik Yiiz-Bak began to
act contumaciously towards the Court, and assumed three
canopies of state, red, black, and white. He then marched
an army from Lakhanawati towards Awadh, and entered
the city of Awadh; and directed that the Khutbah should

10 Evidently the Sanskrit—@taa—brave, heroic, and—WS or AT—nature,
bottom.
A branch of the Ganges is probably meant here, as it is styled in the
original, the Ab-i-Lakhanawati.

2 See page 740.

ॐ Compare STEWART, [page 65], who states that Tughril Khan-i-Yiiz-Bak,
‘‘ invaded the dominions of that prince’”—the Rae of Jaj-nagar, and “ was com-
pletely defeated, and lost a// Ais elephanis ; among which was a white one,
esteemed a great curiosity.”

+ This evidently refers to the capital of Jaj-nagar, and not a different terri-
tory—Sylhet—as STEWART makes it out.

In the oldest copies the word is ७>,431 as above, but in others ८०/41 Armur-
dan or Urmardan, and y2,j;\—Azmurdan or Uzmurdan. See note 4, page
587, para. 8.

3 C 2

764 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

be read for him, and styled himself Sultan Mughis-ud-Din.
After a couple of weeks, one among the Turkish Amirs,
belonging to the troops of the sovereign which were
[located] in the vicinity of [the territory of] Awadh,
unawares, pushed forward into Awadh [giving out] that the
Sultan’s troops were at hand. Malik Yiiz-Bak, discomfited,
embarked on board a vessel and returned to Lakhanawati
° again.

This rebellious act on the part of Malik Yiiz-Bak, the
whole of the people of the realm of Hindistin—both
clergy and laity, Musalmans and Hindus ‘—condemned,
that he should have become a traitor to his sovereign, and
displayed such hostility and sedition. Undoubtedly the evil
consequences attending such conduct befell him, and he fell
from foundation and root. After he returned from Awadh
to Lakhanawati, he determined upon marching into
Kamrid, and transported an army across the river
Beg-mati®. As the Rae of Kamriid had not the power to
resist him, he retired precipitately some whither. Malik
Yiiz-Bak took the city of Kamriid and possessed himself of
countless wealth and treasure, to such extent, that the
amount and weight thereof cannot be contained within the
area of record.

The author, at the time he was sojourning at Lakhan-
awati, had heard from travellers whose statements are to
be relied upon, that from the reign of Gushtasib’, Shah of
’Ajam, who had invaded Chin, and had come towards
Hindistan by that route [by way of दात], twelve
hundred hoards of treasure, all sealed, which were [there
deposited], and any portion of which wealth and treasures
not one of the २३65 had availed himself of, the whole fell
into the hands of the Musalman troops. The reading of
the Khutbah, and Friday religious service were instituted

$ This remark would seem to show that the Hindis were actually begun to
be thought something of, or that even infidels reprobated such conduct.

6 Also written Beg-hati and Bak-mati, as in the account of Muhammad, son
of Bakht-yar, and is the same river. The old capital of Kamriid was Komata-
pur on the west bank of the Darlah river, and the mention of it and the Beg-
mati here tends to elucidate what I have before stated respecting the route taken
by Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, referred to at page 561. See also notes ॐ
and 3 in the same page.

7 Garghasib, as at page 561, in some copies.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 765

in Kamrid, and signs of the people of Islam appeared
there. But of what avail was all this, when the whole,
from phrensy, he gave to the winds? for the wise have said
that, “the seeking to perform overmuch work hath never
turned out fortunate for the seeker.” Distich :—

‘* Wealth is best which will be falling and rising :
Wealth will be quick in springing up.”

After Kamriid was taken [possession of], so they related,
several times the Rae sent confidential persons [to Malik
Yiz-Bak], saying: “Thou hast subdued this territory, and
no Malik of the Musalman people ever before obtained such
success, Now do thou return, and replace me upon the
throne, and I will send to thee tribute every year so many
bags of gold, and so many elephants, and I will continue
the Khutbah unchanged, and the Musalman stamped coin
as established °.”

Malik Yiiz-Bak did not become willing to agree to this
in any way; and the Rae gave command that all his train,
and the peasantry, should go to Malik Yiiz-Bak, and get
him to pledge his right hand [for their safety], and buy up
all the grain procurable in [the city and country of ?] Kam-
700, at whatever price he might require, so that the Musal-
man troops might have no provisions left. They did so
accordingly, and bought up from them all the produce that
was obtainable at a heavy rate.

Depending on the cultivated state and flourishing con-
dition of the country, Malik Yuz-Bak did not lay up any
stores of grain; and, when the time of the spring harvest
came round, the Rae, with the whole of his subjects, rose,
and opened the water dykes all around, and brought Malik
Yiiz-Bak and the troops of Islam to a state of helplessness,
in such wise, that they were near perishing through destitu-
tion. They now took counsel together, and came to the
conclusion that it was necessary to retreat, otherwise they
would die of starvation.

8 Out of this passage STEWART [History of Bengal, page 66] makes the
following, which is rather a 9 translation, certainly—‘‘ Afé [Malik pro-
bably: Mulk means country] Yuzbek ordered a mosque to be built: and,
after the accustomary prayers and thanksgiving, for the success of the Moham-
medan arms, had been read, he was proclaimed Sovereign of the United Kingdoms
of Bengal and Kamroop”

7

766 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

They accordingly set out from Kamrid with the intention
of proceeding towards Lakhanawati. The route through
the plain [country] was flooded with water, and occupied
by the Hinditis. The Musalmans obtained a guide to
bring them out of that country by conducting them to-
wards the skirt of the mountains. After they had pro-
ceeded some few stages, they got entangled among passes
and defiles, and narrow roads, and both their front and rear
was seized by the Hindiis. Ina narrow place a fight took
place in front of the leading rank between two elephants ;
the force fell into confusion, the Hindiis came upon them
from every side, and Musalman and Hindi mingled pell
mell together. Suddenly an arrow struck Malik Yiz-Bak,
who was mounted on an elephant, in the breast, and he fell,
and was made prisoner; and all his children, family, and
dependents, and the whole of his force, were made captive.

When they carried Malik Yiiz-Bak before the Rae, he
made a request that they would bring his son to him; and,
when they brought his son to him, he placed his face to the
face of his son, and yielded his soul to God’. The
Almighty’s mercy be upon him!

+

XIX. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, ARSALAN KHAN, SANJAR-I-CHAST.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, was an impetuous and
warlike man, and had attained the acme of capacity and
intrepidity, The august Sultan [I-yal-timish] had pur-
chased him from Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk, Abi-Bikr, the Habash
[Abyssinian]. Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk had brought him from
1402811 ' ; and some have narrated on this wise, that he was
one among the sons of the Khwarazmi Amirs, in the
territory of Sham [Syria], and Misr [Egypt] > and had been
carried away captive from those parts and sold to Ikhtiyar-
ul-Mulk, Abi-Bikr,

When the Sultan first purchased him, he became Jamah-
dar ° [Keeper of the Wardrobe], and in that office he served

9 See pages 769 to 776, farther on, whcre our author makes a totally different
statement from this, and also in the account of Ulugh Khan farther on.

' Anglicized, Aden.

2 Sce page 230.

9 Some copies have Khisah-dar, instead of Jamah-dar.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 767

the Sultan some time. When the period of the Shamsi
sovereignty terminated, and the reign of Sultan Rukn-ud-
Din, Firiiz Shah, also came to its conclusion, he became
Chashni-gir [Comptroller of the Royal Kitchen] in the
reign of Sultan Raziyyat. After some time, he obtained
the fief of Balaram ^

During his own lifetime, the august® Sultan [I-yal-
timish] conferred upon him, in marriage, a daughter of
Malik [Sultan] Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, of Bhianah ° which
territory and adjacent parts were, in the beginning of the
Musalman rule, rendered flourishing and cultivated by him.
By this connexion, in the reign of Sultan Niasir-ud-Din,
Mahmid Shah—May his sovereignty continue !—Bhianah
was made Arsalan Khan’s fief. Some years subsequent to
this, the dignity of Wakil-i-Dar [Representative in Dar-
bar] was entrusted to him. Subsequently, when the pre-
served city of ,Tabarhindah was recovered from the
dependents of Sher Khan [Malik Nusrat-ud-Dunya wa
ud-Din, Sher Khan-i-Sunkar], it was made over to his
charge, in the month of Zi-Hijjah, 651 प. After that,
when by the sublime order of the Court, the Khan-i-Mu’-
azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, had departed, and gone to
Nag-awr *, and proposed to return again to the service of
the Court, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar attached himself to his
service and accompanied him *, When they arrived at the
capital, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar received honour at the
Court, the asylum of the universe, and returned again to
Tabarhindah’.

4 In Awadh. In some copies Balaram or Balram.

5 Nearly every copy of the text here, the Calcutta Text included, has the
words ~^ J.s.—august martyr, but it is a blunder of course.

6 It does not appear how I-yal-timigh became possessed of the nght to dis-
pose of another man’s daughter ; and we must suppose that, after Baha-ud-
Din, Jughril’s death, his family, in some way, came under Kutb-ud-Din,
I-bak’s authority, and from him to I-yal-timigh. See the account of Tughril,
page 544-

7 See page 695.

8 This occurred some time after Ulugh Khan had been banished from the
Court, and directed to proceed to Hansi. See in the account of Ulugh Khan
farther on.

9 Joined in the outbreak against ’"Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, in the middle of
the year 652 H.

1 This must have been early in 653 H.—in Muharram probably—as Ulugh
Khin, having recovered power again, returned to Dihli, in company with the

768 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik Sher Khan, having come back again from Turkis-
tan, determined upon [re-]possessing himself of Tabar-
hindah. He brought a large number of cavalry and
infantry from the side of Lohor along with him against
Tabarhindah, and, at night, appeared before the walls of
the fortress. Sher Khan's troops dispersed themselves
in the town, and about the fortress; and when, in the
morning, the world became illumined with the sun’s light,
Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, with his sons and principal retainers,
attacked him. As his cavalry had become dispersed, Sher
Khan was under the necessity of retiring. When Sher
Khan, subsequently to this affair, came to the sublime
Court, in conformity with the royal command, Arsalan
Khian-i-Sanjar likewise presented himself there +.

He continued to sojourn at the capital for some time,
after which Awadh was entrusted to his charge. On several
occasions, Kutlugh Khan *, with those Amirs who had con-
federated themselves with him, began to harass the borders
of Awadh and Karah. Arsalan Khan averted this annoy-
ance: he led a body of troops against them, and compelled
that faction to disperse. After that, a slight change in his
mind, antagonistic to the Court, became manifest ; and the
sublime standards moved towards Awadh ‘ and Karah for
the purpose of suppressing his designs. When the sublime
standards cast their shadow upon that country, Arsalan
Khan-i-Sanjar retired before the [contingents forming the]
centre division of the royal forces, and he despatched con-
fidential persons, and sought safety for himself, under the

Sultan, on the 90 of Zi-Hijjah, 652 H. See also the account of Sher Khan
farther on.

2 See page 793. Sher Khan’s fief of Tabarhindah was restored to him, to-
gether with others he had previously held. The year is not mentioned, but,
from the occurrence of other events, it appears to have been early in 653 H.

ॐ The second husband of the Sultan’s mother. The fief of Awadh was
assigned to them, our author says, on the 6th of Muharram, 653 H. See
page 701, and note १, The statements there and in the account of Ulugh
Khan, farther on, differ greatly from this.

4 In one of the oldest copies of the text, and a more modern one, ‘* Awadh
and the Koh-payah.” The reason for this movement is very differently stated
in the account of Ulugh Khan. Arsalan Khan is said there to have delayed
joining the Sultan’s army concentrated before Dihli, on the invasion of Sind
by the Mughals at the end of 655 H., and Kutlugh Khan—there styled हणा
Khan, Mas’iid-i-Jani—had done the same, and, consequently, they were in a
state of apprehension.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 769

stipulation that, when the Sultan’s troops returned [to the
capital], he, Arsalan Khan, along with Kutlugh Khan °, son
of [the late] Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, should present them-
selves there. Their supplication was graciously complied
with; and, when the royal army returned again to the
abode of sovereignty and illustrious seat of government,
Dihli, after some time, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar again
attached himself to the sublime Court, and was distin-
guished by ample honour and deference.

After he had remained in attendance at the Court for
some time, in the year 657 H., the city of Karah® was
assigned to him as a fief, and, in the beginning of that same
year, he led an army from Karah with the intention of
pillaging the country of Malwah and Kalinjar. After he
had advanced some stages, he turned aside and marched
towards the territory of Lakhanawati. At this time, the
feudatory of Lakhanawati [Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-
Yiz-Baki] had proceeded towards the country of Bang and
left the city of Lakhanawati empty [of troops]. Arsalan
Khan-i-Sanjar had not unfolded this secret to a single
person among his Amirs and Maliks, his sons and slaves,
that he was entertaining the intention of marching against
Lakhanawati, and he had neither permission nor orders
from the sublime Court for this undertaking. When he
reached the frontier of that country, a number of his sons,
Amirs, and slaves, discovered that which he had resolved
in his mind, and they refused to follow him. As, however,
there was no means of returning, out of necessity, they
accompanied him.

When Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar arrived before the gate of
the city of Lakhanawati, the inhabitants thereof took
refuge within the walls [and defended themselves].
Annalists have stated on this wise, that, for a space of three
days, they fought, and, at the end of that time, Arsalan
Khin-i-Sanjar took the city, and gave orders to sack it.
The property, cattle, and Musalman captives that fell into

® This second Kutlugh Khan cannot be correct, and does not refer to the
Sultan’s step-father. The person here referred to, as stated in the previous
note, is, in some places, styled Kulij and Kulich Khan. See also the List at
page 673, and page 712, where he is styled Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid.

6 See following note, para. third. This is not mentioned in the account of
Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah's reign.

77० THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the hands of his followers was very great ; and, for a period
of three days, that plunder, sack, and rapine was kept up.
When that tumult had been allayed, and he had taken
possession of the city, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiiz-
Baki, who was’ the feudatory of Lakhanawati, at the place
he then was in, became acquainted with this misfortune.
He returned from thence, and between him and Arsalan
Khan-i-Sanjar an engagement took place.

From the sublime Court an order granting the investi-
ture of the government of Lakhanawati had been [previously]
issued to Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiiz-Baki’, after that
he had despatched, to the presence of the sublime Court,
two elephants, valuable property, and precious things to a
large amount.

Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar thus gained the upper hand, and
Malik ’Izz-ud-Din १, Balban-i-Ytiz-Baki, became a captive,
and it is so stated that he was martyred*. This much,

7 STEWART appears to have used the I.0.L. 4.5. , No. 1952, of our author’s
work, for his History of Bengal as well as another mentioned subsequently ;
and, when I mention that, on the margin of that AZS., which is quite correct,
he has written, in pencil, that ‘‘this person”—from his being also named
Balban, I suppose—“‘ is Zhe Vizier,” it is not surprising that the HISTORY OF
BENGAL, in that place, contains so many absurd errors.

8 One of the oldest and best copies has ’Ala-ud-Din, Balban, here, but in
other places agrees with the above.

9 Very great discrepancy occurs here, and in other places in this work, with
respect to the history of Lakhanawatf, which is the more to be regretted
because our author is the sole authority, as a contemporary writer, for the
events of this early period. This discrepancy is occasioned chiefly from the
loose manner in which he records important events, which may have appeared
to him of minor consequence, and from the fact of his mentioning them in
different places, with, very often, considerable difference in the details.
Another cause of confusion is his omission of dates, and, as his history is
brought to conc'usion in 658 H., just six years of the reign of Sultan Nasir-ud-
Din, Mahmiid Shah, is a perfect blank in the history of Mukammadan India
which no other writer has supplied.

Since I wrote note § to page 617, some further facts have been gleaned
about the previous obscure period in the history of Lakhanawati, viz. from
the putting to death or butchery of Sulfan Ghiyiis-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, the Khalj,
by the eldest son of Sultan I-yal-timigh—Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shih [the
first of that name}—who invaded his territory from Awadh whilst he was absent
on an expedition into Bang and Kamrid, and had left the capital, the city of
Lakhanawati, denuded of troops, and the appointment, as feudatory, but of
which the date is not given, of Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-Tat
[Malik, No. V.], who died there in 631 H.

I must, therefore, go back a little, in order to make the facts stand out a
little more clearly ; but, first, I must refer to Mr. Blochmann’s ‘‘ Contributions

‘

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 771

that the author was aware of, as to the state of affairs in

to the Geography and History of Bengal,” as there are some errors and dis-
crepancies therein which require to be noticed and corrected.

At page 37 of Part L., he says the Muhammadan period of the history of
Bengal may be ‘‘ conveniently divided into five parts. I. The ‘ Initial period,’
or reigns of the governors of Lak‘hnauti appointed by the Dihli sovereigns,
from the conquest of Bengal by Mubammad Bakhtydar Khilji [i.e. Ikhtiyar-ud-
Din, Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar-ud-Din, Mahmiid, the Khalj] a.p. 1203
to 1338 A.D.”

In Part III. of his ‘‘ Contributions,” page 134 [See also APPENDIX D,
page xxiv. ], he criticizes my statement respecting the year of the conquest of
Bengal by the Khalj chief, and says it was conquered in 594 H., or A.D. 1198,
whilst A.D. 1203, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, is equivalent to 600 H.
—a difference of only six years! He also calls these rulers ‘‘ governors,” and
says they were ‘‘appointed by the Dihli sovereigns,” but this is erroneous.
The Khalj rulers, from the “conquest” to the acknowledgment of I-yal-
timish’s suzerainty by Sultan Ghiy’s-ud-Din, "Iwaz, in 622 H., were entirely
independent of the Dihli rulers with the single exception of the mad-man, ’Ali-
i-Mardan.

Mr. Blochmann also commences his ‘ Initial period’ [Part I., page 38] with
‘¢Tughril” in 613 H., but ’Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, was the third
feudatory of Lakhanawati after the downfall of the Khalj sovereigns. Mr.
Blochmann’s List [condensed] is as follows :—

‘*Saifuddin Aibak. Dies at Lak/hnauti in 631 H.

“Tughril, 631 H., to 5th Zi Qa’dah, 642 H.

‘*Qamarud-din Timur [?] [See page 742, note 6] Khan, governor from 5th
Zi Qa’dah, 642, to 29th Shawwal, 644.

‘‘Ikhtiyaruddin Yuzbak Tughril Khan, proclaims himself king under the
title of Sultan Mughisuddin. Perishes in Kamrup. No dates are given.

‘¢ Jalaluddin Mas’id, Malik Jani Khilji [!] Khan becomes governor, 18th Zi
Qa’dah 656.”

[Mr. Blochmann eschews izafats, and criticizes my use of them as u7-Persian.
By not using an igafat here, as is meant in the original, he turns Jalal-ud-Din,
Mas’iid, into his father, Malik Jani, who was killed in 634 H., and at page 206
of the Calcutta Printed Text, what Mr. Thomas styles the impossible name
of Khilji Khan is not given, but ge—which is an error in the ^^ official text,”
«° officially imperfect” I suppose” is meant—for & —Kulich. He is also
styled @s—Kutlugh, in some copies, but Malik ~’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, who is
styled, at page 626 of this Translation [Calcutta Text, page 187, with caw
for gle], Shah-zadah of Turkistdn, was his father. ]

**?Izzuddin Balban, was governor in 657, in which year he was attacked by
Tajuddin Arsalan Khan Sanjar i Khwdérazm{, who, however, was captured or
killed by ’Izzuddin. 7Zaég. p. 267 [in a foot-note]—Hence Tajuddin Arsalan
Khan should not be put among the governors of Bengal.”

[He must be put among the Sultans then, for he ruled some years. The
०५ official text” here kills the wrong man. It was ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiz-
Baki, who was made captive éy Arsalin Khan-i-Sanjar, and ^^ some say was
put to death.” The certainty of this is proved from the fact that Tatar Khan,
who now follows in Mr. Blochmann’s list, was Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar’s son. ]

‘¢ Muhammad Arsalan Tatar Khan, son of Arsalan Khan Sanjar. He had
been for some time governor, when the emferor Balban ascended the throne
[664]. Sarant, p. 66. After a few years he was succeeded by—

772 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

that country, and of the events which happened in those
parts, is here recorded. May Almighty God have mercy

‘*Tughril, who proclaimed himself king under the name of Sultan Mughis-
uddin. His fate has been mentioned above. No dates are given.”

See also note at page 589 of this translation.

In Part II. of his ‘‘ Contributions,” Mr. Blochmann varies the latter part of
the above list ; and, after ‘‘ Muhammad Arsalan Tatar Khan,” we have two
additional names, ‘‘Sher Khan,” ‘‘Amin Khan,” and then Tughmil [1.7
Amin Khan’s Vé:6; but, as I do not propose, at present, to go into matters
relating to the successor of Sultan Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, I will here
return to the Khalj dynasty, with the object of giving a brief consecutive account
of those rulers and the feudatories who succeeded them, from the time that
Sultan Ghiyag-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, was forced to acknowledge the supremacy of I-
yal-timish.

This event happened about the middle of 622 H., and the coins of Sultan
Ghiyag-ud-Din. ’"Iwaz [See THoMas: “Initial Coinage of Bengal,” Journal
R. A. Soc., vol. vi., 1873, pages 352—357], prove that he was an independent
sovereign up to that period, and used the title of Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Miminin,
which was peculiar to the Shansabanfs of Firiiz-koh, and never assumed by
their mam/iuk successors; but he did not necessarily ‘‘ shave his property” with
the Khalifah. For the origin of the title see note 8, page 315, and pages 368
and 389.

Mr. Thomas also gives, in the same paper, coins of Sultan I-yal-timish as
early as 614 H. and 616 H.—eight and six years 0८2८ Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwag,
had to acknowledge a superior, and these coins are attributed by him to the
Bengal mints. Iam not aware how this conclusion has been arrived at, for I-
yal-timish had certainly not been acknowledged by the ruler of Lakhanawatf
at that time. I think the issue of these coins may be well accounted for, from
a passage in our author [see pages §90—591], which may not have received
such attention as it ought to have received, namely, that I-yal-limish, ‘‘ on
several occasions, sent forces from Dihli towards Lakhanawati, possessed him-
self of Bihar, and installed his own Amirs therein ;” but our author, unfor-
tunately, mentions nothing definite until 622 H., when Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwag,
was reduced.

We may therefore conclude that the coins bearing I-yal-timigh’s name and
titles, attributed to the Benga] mints, were struck in Bihar on the occasions
mentioned by our author in the passage above referred to, and before he had
obtained any decided advantage over the Khalj Sultan.

However, having compelled Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, "Iwaz, about the
middle of 622 H., to acknowledge him as suzerain and to coin the money in
his name [page 593], I-yal-timigh left Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Janf [who is called
"Izz-ud-Din, Jani, at page 594], Shah-zadah of Turkistan [see List, page 626]
in charge of Bihar; but I-yal-timigsh had no sooner withdrawn than Sultan
Ghiyas-ud-Din, "Iwaz, marched into Bihar, compelled Malik Jani to fly into
Awadh, and took possession of that territory again. I should imagine the
coins bearing the high-sounding titles given by Thomas, at page 357 of the
same paper, must have been issued at that time—622 H. or 623 H.—but he
reads the date 620, This, however, is not very material to the present
subject.

With this fact before him, it seems inexplicable to me why Mr. Thomas
calls him ‘‘this self-made king,” and that ‘‘ Altamsh” [I-yal-timigh] ‘‘con-

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 773
on that great Khan, and long preserve the Sultan of Sul-

ceded the tardy justice of decreeing, that, in virtue of his good works, Ghiyas-
ud-din ’Awz [Iwag?] should, in his grave. be endowed with that coveted title
of Sultén, which had been denied to him while living.” Who denied it to
him? Minhaj-ud-Din, even at page 163 of the Calcutta ^" Official Text,” does
not say so. What he did say will be found literally rendered at page 587 of
this Translation. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, was equally as much entitled
to the “ coveted title”’ of Sultan as his adversary, I-yal-timish, was. He had
been chosen precisely in the same way, by the chief men of the country, he
owed no fealty whatever to कणां or its sovereigns, was a Turk like his rival,
what is more, was a free-born man, and not a manumitted slave—the slave of a
slave—which I-yal-timigh was, and was included among the great Maliks of
Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mubammad-i-Sam, master of I-yal-timish’s master.

These erroneous ideas respecting the two Sultans I have felt myself bound
to correct, according to historical facts, and our author’s statements.

I would also remark, en passant, that Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, was not
overcome by I-yal-timigh until fen years after 614 H. See page 348 of
«^ Initial Coinage of Bengal,’ and page 542 of this Translation, and Printed
Text, page 144.

At the time Malik Janf fled before the Khalj Sultan into Awadh, Malik
Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, the eldest son and heir-apparent of I-yal-
timigh, was there located, having been entrusted with the fief of Awadh in
623 H. About two years and a half after he had been compelled to acknow-
ledge the suzerainty of the Dihli Sultan, as shown by his coins, Sultan
Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’"Iwaz, having set out on an expedition against the infidels of
Bang and Kamriid [See page 594], Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah,
incited by Malik ’Ald-ud-Din, Jani [I-yal-timish was occupied elsewhere in
624 H., but he sent reinforcements to his son, see page 611], whom the
Khalj Sultan had expelled from Bihar, seized the opportunity—no intimation,
of course, having been given beforehand—and invaded Lakhanawati, which
had been left nearly empty of troops, seized the fortress of Basan-kot, and took
possession of the city of Lakhanawati. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, on
becoming aware of this perfidious act, flew to the rescue—with a portion only
of his forces, from what our author states at page 595—encountered the son of
I-yal-timish, but was defeated, and taken captive, along with ‘‘all the Khalj
Amirs,” and the whole of them were butchered.

Malik Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, died, or was killed, for there is some
mystery about it, seemingly, some time in the month of Rabi’-ug-Sanf pro-
bably, since the news reached Dihli in the following month, or it may have
happened in that same month. How or where he died our author, ‘‘the sole
authority for this period,” does not say, but he repeatedly styles him “the
martyred Malik” [See note +, page 630]. Firishtah’s assertion that he died
at Lakhanawati is like a good many of his assertions, without any proof what-
ever, and his own invention probably.

Immediately after the death of Ghiyadg-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, it appears, another
Khalj chief succeeded in acquiring power, but how, is not clear, and, I fear,
can never be thoroughly made so. He is styled, by our author, at page 617,
Balka Malik-i-Husim-ud-Din, ’Iwaz—that is to say, the son of Husim, &c.,
the izafat standing for son of [See APPENDIX D.], which is sufficiently proved,
I imagine, from the fact that he was not at all likely to have been called by the
precise title of his predecessor—Husim-ud-Din, "Iwaz—as well 3 at page 626,

774 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

tans, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, in sovereignty and
prosperity! ‘

in the List of I-yal-timish’s Maliks, Daulat Shah-i-Balka, son [the izafat
understood] of Husdm-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, Malik of Lakhanawati, thus showing
beyond a doubt that he had been acknowledged by I-yal-timish as dependent
ruler, otherwise why put him in the List of Maliks? [See THomas, “ Initial
Coinage,” page 366]; in two copies of the text, I-ran Shah-i-Balka ; in one, his
title is Abii-1-Ma’ali, and by others he is styled Nasir-ud-Din-i-’Iwaz [See pages
617—618]; in the Calcutta "^ Official Text,” at page 177, Malik Gazlak Khan
Daulat Shah, Khalji, with ¢vo names jumbled into one ; and, the next page,
I-ran Shah, Balka, Khalji. Balka is not peculiar to the Ghaznawi mulers : it
is a purely Turkish name. There is another Balka—Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-
Balka Khan—in the List of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shiah’s Maliks at page
673, and, from what is said in the account of Malik Kashli Khan [No. XXIV.],
there were many Khalj Amirs in the time of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah.

From the coin given by Thomas [‘‘ Initial Coinage of Bengal,” page 367],
his titles and name—plate, fig. g—are Abii-]-Ma’ali [Thomas, himself, as men-
tioned at page 367, was in doubt about ९ 1‰। being correct, and thought
it ended in _J}—i-Daulat Shah, 422 Mau-diid [and there is nothing in the
titular name of Sultin Ghiyas-ud-Din, who, before he came to the throne was
entitled Husim-ud-Din-i-’Iwaz, to show that his name was not Mau-diid], and,
although he acknowledges the suzerainty of I-yal-timish, and styles him
Sultin-ul-A’gam, he calls himself Shahan-Shih, and also inserts on his coin
the name of the Khalifah, and, doubtless, had received a patent conveying the
titles from Baghdad. The date on this coin, the only one that has come to
light, I believe, is ale» 5 ज €~ ae which may be either 627 or
629 H., the stubborn @— occurring again. It is not to be wondered at that
‘the coin does not give him the name Husamuddin :” Husim-ud-Din was his
title before he assumed that of Ghiyag-ud-Din, which he did—not at all
an unusual thing—with the title of Sultan.

In 628 H., I-yal-timish had to move against this Khalj Sultan, who, doubt-
less, was getting too powerful to please the Dihli sovereign, and he was
overthrown, and ‘‘secured,” as our author remarks, much in the same way,
probably, as Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, was—in the grave. With him the Khalj
dynasty finally terminated

I-yal-timigh now conferred the ‘‘throne of Lakhanawati”’ upon Malik ’Ala-ud-
Din, Jani—the Shah-zadah of Turkistan—but he was shortly after deposed,
and then governors, or more correctly feudatories, were appointed from प
and the first of them was Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-Tat, as he is
styled at page 729, which see

{६ will be noticed from the above that Mr. Blochmann has fallen into con-
siderable error [See ‘*‘ Remarks’on Mr. Thomas’s readings,” in the ‘* Proceed-
ings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,” No. x., December, 1872], in assuming
that ‘‘ Daulat shah seems to be the Malik Alauddin Jani mentioned in the
Tabagét 1 करदप (Bibl. Ind. Edition), pp. 174, 178).” Our author very
distinctly shows that they were two totally different persons.

In the same way, I cannot agree with him that (८ The royal titles assumed
by the early Bengal Governors were customary in those days,” but, on the con-
trary, such titles were never assumed unless the feudatory rebelled as in
the case of Malik [No. XVIII.] Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan,
who assumed the title of Sultan [see page 764]. Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 775

_XX. MALIK °IZZ-UN-DIN, BALBAN-I-KASHLU KHAN-US-
SULTANI SHAMSI

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban, is a native of Khifchak, and

had been specially honoured by his sovereign [See note 8, page 641], hence he
records it in the Bihar inscription, in which the words ‘* Tughril-us-Se/¢ami
with d-7-nisbat, merely show, as in Mu’izzi, Kutbi, Shamsi, &c., that he
was a slave of the reigning dynasty, as shown at page 736 :

Under the events of the 13th year of Sultin Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah’s
reign, it is stated that, on the 18th of Zi-Ka’dah—the /ast month—656 H., the
kingdom of Lakhanawati was conferred upon MALIK JALAL-UD-Din, Mas’UD
ShAu, son of the late Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani—the same, who, in the List of
Maliks at the end of Sultin Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish’s reign, is called
५ Prince of Turkistan,” and who was made ruler of Lakhanawati at the close
of the Khalj dynasty, as already related, and subsequently held Lahor,
rebelled, and was slain in 634. See page 640. Afterwards, in the account of
the 14th year of Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah's reign, it is mentioned that, on
the 4th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 657 H., two elephants, treasure,
&c., reached the capital from Lakhanawati, but who the sender was is not
mentioned

In his account of Ulugh Khan, farther on, our author states that Arsalan Khan-
i-Sanjar—the subject of the above notice—and KuTLuGH [KULICH] KHAN,
Mas’tp.i-JANT, i.e. son of [’Ala-ud-Din], Jani, on the advance of Ulugh Khan
against them with the Sultan’s forces, and as referred to in note +, page 768,
having agreed to present themselves at Court, did so on the 27th of Shawwal
—the tenth month—656 H. Two months after this, which would be the
twelfth month of that year, the state of Lakhanawati was conferred upon
KuTLuGu [Kulich] KHAN—as he is styled—and the districts of the Koh-payah
upon Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar.

A few lines under, it is stated, that, on the 4th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 657 H.,
only the sixth month after Lakhanawati is said to have been conferred on
Kutlugh [Kulich] Khan, two elephants, treasure, and other valuables, reached
Dihli from Lakhanawati—some time must be allowed for Kutlugh [Kulich]
Khin, so called, to have reached that part from Dihli, and some time also for
the elephants, &c., to have arrived from thence—and that the sender of these
things was not Kutlugh [Kulich] Khan, but MALIK ’Izz-up-Din, BALBAN-
1-¥0z-Baki ; sof Yiiz-Bak [Yiiz-Baki refers to a dependent or slave, in the
same manner as the terms, Kutbi, Shamsi, and the like]; and, that, through
Ulugh Khan’s exertions and good offices, the investiture of Lakhanawati
was conferred upon him, and that an honorary robe and other honours were
despatched for him, stated above also, in this notice of Arsalan Khin-i-
Sanjar.

From these statements of our author, it would appear, that ’Izz-ud-Din,
Balban-i-Yiiz-Baki, would not allow Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid-i-Jani—otherwise
Kutlugh [Kulich] Khan—#s/ he ever went there, to assume authority, or that he
had died suddenly, and ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban, had assumed the government. Had
the word been Yuz-Bak, and not Yiiz-Baki, we might safely assume that he was
Tughril Khan-i-Yiz-Bak’s, otherwise Sultan Mughis-ud-Din’s, son, and the
same that had been made prisoner with his father in the disastrous retreat from
Kamrid [just related at page 766], and named successor by him. This assump-

776 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

a man impetuous and gallant, of good disposition, and the
votary of ’Ulama, upright and good men, and recluses.

tion, too, would have explained what appears strange above, namely, that the
first mention of ’Izz-ud-Din, Yiiz- Baki, is that he was absent on an expedition,
in Bang, when Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar took advantage of it to invade his fief,
slew him, and took possession of the territory.

This also shows what a state the Dihli kingdom must have been in for one
feudatory to make war upon another, put him to death, and seize his fief and
hold it with perfect impunity.

Our author himself is scertain of the upshot of the circumstances ; and it
must also be remembered that these events must have happened about the time
our author closes his history so abruptly, and leaves all the rest of the events of
Nasir-ud- Din’s reign a perfect blank ; and, from the time he closed his history,
no other writer, that we know of—or, at least, that is available—continued the
history of the Dihli sovereigns, until zinety-fve years after, when Ziya-ud-Din,
Barani, finished his work, which, however, only took up the events from the
accession of Sultan Ghiyag-ud-Din, Balban, and still left the events of six years
—from 658 प्न, to 664 H.—blank as before.

Very little is to be gathered from the Tarikh-i-Firiiz-Shahi of Ziya-ud-Din
respecting the events which happened in Lakhanawati—for the work is written
in a gossiping style, and dates are rarely given. This much, however, is
stated therein, that, in 662 H., on the accession of Sultan Balban [the date is
corrected to 664 H. in a foot-note—I quote from the printed text], sixty-two
elephants were despatched from Lakhanawati to Dihli by Tatar Khan, son of
Arsalan Khan. From this it must be assumed that he held the fief, but when
or how he was appointed, or when and how he was removed, and whether
Tughril, who subsequently rebelled, succeeded him or what, cannot be dis-
covered therein. Mr. Blochmann [ ^" Contributions,” page 114, Part I1.] says
a person named Sher Khan succeeded Tatar Khan, and that another named
Amin Khan succeeded him, but the authority is not stated. The title of Khan,
given to both these persons, savours much of Firightah’s statements.

No dependence whatever is to be placed on either the Tabakat-i-Akbari,
Buda’tini, or Firightah, for the events of Sultan Balban’s reign. They all
copy one from another, and the first-mentioned work closes the reign of Nasgir-
ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, when our author does, takes the reign of Balban from
Ziyi-ud-Din, Barani, and says neither more nor less, except in an abbreviated
form, than is contained_in Ziya-ud-Din’s work.

Stewart is totally wrong in his statements [HISTORY OF BENGAL, pages 66
and 67] respecting this period. He says ^" Mudk—Mulk means @ country,
Kingdom, &c.—Yuzbek”’—he means MALIK Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Tughril Khan-i-
Yiiz-Bak, otherwise, Sultan Mughis-ud-Din—” died, on the occasion of his
being taken captive” [as related at page 766], ‘‘ 2४ 656 H.,” but who says so?
and in what work is sucha statement to be found? Our author does not say so ;
and Stewart takes his account from him, for J have now before me the MS,
copies of our author’s work which Stewart used, with his writing in pencil,
every here and there, on the margins of the pages, where he alters the names
and makes those written correctly totally wrong—as ‘‘ 42८ Addeen,” ‘* Mulk

Yuszbek,” &c. At this very place, in one AS. which has ’Izz-ud-Din, he alters
it with a pencil to Yalal Addeen Khany, and, in his History, this same name is
thus given. This enabled me to discover that I had the identical copies he
used, before me.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 777

The august Sultan [I-yal-timish] purchased him of

As I have already shown, our author does not give the date cf Tughril Khan-
i-Yiiz-Kak’s death [see page 766], and there is mot a word more used than I
have rendered above ; yet Stewart goes on to say that Jalal Addeen Khany
[A’kany, that is Khani, I suppose, signifying Khan-ship, the office or dignity
of Khan] was sent to take possession of the province of Lucknowty, ‘‘as soon
as the death of € Yuzbek was known at Court.” There is not the least
authority for all this, more than our author’s words above ; and yet his state-
ment respecting the elephants and treasure, and the name of 'Izz-ud-Din-Bal-
ban-i-Yiiz-Baki, is ignored altogether or changed at the caprice of Stewart into
«° [ 2121 Addeen Khany ” !

Stewart then perpetrates a terrible blunder, in consequence of altering the
mames given by our author, in stating, that it was this Jalal Addeen Khany who
was killed in battle with /rs#ian Khan [Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar], the Imperial
Governor of Kurrah [Kayah?], who had ‘‘ deen intrusted with the command of
anarmy to subdue the Raja of Callinger [Kalinjar?], in Bundelcund,” &c. [see
our author’s statement, page 769], and then crowns the blunder with another still
greater in making Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, whom he here styles
५९.22 Al Mulk, Taj addeeen Irsilan Khan Sunyir,” the sender of the elephants,
for he says [page 68], that, in consequence of his sending ‘‘elephants, Aorscs,
and other property of the wurdered chief, as a ८7८ to the flagitious minister
[all this is his own amplification of our author’s simple statements], the Vizier
[ Wazir १] of the contemptible Court of Dehly, his conduct was overlooked.”

He then goes on to say, under his account of ‘‘/za@ Addeen,” that, ‘‘ The
Governor, Jelal Addeen, returning soon afterwards, an engagement took place,
in the month of Fumad [there are two months named JamAdi—the frst and
second Jamadi], 657, detween the two chiefs. The /atter (sic) was slain in the
contest [he is the murdered chief just before]; and the plunder of his property
having been remitted to Dehly procured the confirmation of the usurper. He
continued to rule Bengal for two years, and died at Lucknowty in the
year 659.”

Whether Stewart obtained these dates from the very modern Riaz-us-Salatin,
which eschews its authorities, referred to by Mr. Blochmann in his ‘‘ Con¢ri-
butions,” page 1, I cannot say, or whether they were taken from some such
work as I have shown Firishtah’s to be, but these dates are certainly to be
doubted, unless some authority for them is forthcoming.

The Tabakat-i- Akbari says—evidently copying our author, after a fashion—in
656 H., “ Malik Jalal-ud-Din-i-Jani ”—i. €. Jalal-ud-Din, son of ’Ala-ud-Din,
Jani—“ was presented with an honorary robe, and sent to Lakhanawati,” and
that, “in 657 H., &८ sent two elephants, jewels, &c.”” Immediately atter, it is
stated that “ Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kashlii Khan, who 25 mentioned above, died in
Rajab”’ of that year. Now this is a pretty hash, but if the reader will look
at the passages under Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah's reign, and in the account
of Ulugh Khan, previously referred to, and compare them with the work in
question, he will find that the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari has turned ’Izz-
ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiiz-Baki, into ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kaghli Khan, the
seditious feudatory of Sind, who marched upon Dihli, in concert with Kutlugh
Khan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah’s step-father, in 655 H., who is the
person ^ mentioned above” immediately before in that work, and who was never
in Bengal in his life. He, too, did not die in Rajab, 657 H., for he was living
when our author closed his history, in 658 H., as may be found at page 786.

The Tabakit-i-Akbari, and Firishtah, both make the same great blunder

3 D

778 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

a merchant, when before the fortress of Manda-

throughout Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah’s reign of confusing ’Izz-ud-Din,
Balban-i-Kask/# Khan, with Ulugh Khan's brother, Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-
Kashli Khan, who died on the 2oth of Rajab, 657 H. In fact, because the
name Salban occurs, 040८7 Khan is often mistaken, in that work, for Ulugh
Khan himself. Firishtah of course, by copying from the Tabakat-i-Akbari,
copies all its blunders, without exception.

From what our author states in different places in this work, it may be
supposed, merely, that, when Malik Jalal-ud-Din [Kulich Khan], Mas’iid Shah,
son of the late Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, was appointed to the government of
Lakhanawati, in the last month of the year 656 H., there must either have been
2 vacancy, or the Court had determined to oust Ikbtiyar-ud-Din, Tughril
Khan.i-Yiiz-Bak, who had invaded it, and usurped the fief; and, if the former,
it must, in all probability, have been caused by his death.

If this latter supposition be correct, the 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Y iz-Baki,
mentioned by our author, who is evidently the same person who ts referred to at
page 827—Kutlugh Khan’s [the Sultan’s father-in-law] son-in-law—who
became Deputy Amir-i-Hajib, when '’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayban conspired against
Ulugh Khan, must have been confirmed in it by the Court of Dihli.

I think he must have been a dependent of Tugbril’s, not his son, for this
reason, that, when referring to a soz, our author merely adds the father’s name
to the son’s, using the izafat for dn [see APPENDIX C], namely :— Muhammad-
i-Sam, Mas’iid-i-Jani, Abi-Bikr-i-Ayaz, and the like ; but, when he refers to ४
retainer, freedman, or slave, he always adds the yd-i-nzsbat, signifying relation
or connexion, to the person’s name, as, ऽ पावत Kutbé, Shamss, Ayazi, Yiiz-
14147, —as previously stated.

The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, which quotes our author largely, as far it goes,
throws a little more light than others on this subject [Alfi, possibly, which I
have not the means of examining just at this time, might throw more], although
very meagre. It states that Malik, ’Ald-ud-Din, Jani, ruled over Lakhanawasi
three years, and was removed.

Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-Tat, succeeded, and died in 633 H. Our
author says he died in 631 H.

’Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, succeeded him and held the govern-
ment thirteen years and some months [to the end of the year 642 H. See
page 740].

Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khan succeeded and held it ten years [two years less two
months. He died in 644 H. See page 741]; and, after him, in Nasir-ud-
Din, Mahmiid Shiah’s reign, Ikhtiyat-ud-Din, Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, who
assumed the title of Sultin Mughis-ud-Din, became feudatory.

The Tarikh-i-Firtz-Shahi says ‘‘ this assumption of sovereignty took place
in Sultan Ghiyais-ud-Din, Balban’s reign, du¢ God knows best.” He ruled
over Lakhanawati twenty-six years [from the death of Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khan,
twenty-six years would bring us to Shawwal, 670 H., however], and, after
him, Sultén Ghiyds-ud-Din, Balban, conferred Lakhanawati upon his
youngest son, Bughra Khan.

The Gaur J/S., previously referred to [in note ’, page 558], also states that
Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan reigned twenty-six years, from 653 H. to 682 H.,
@nd both authors make the same mistake with respect to Ki-ran-i-Tamur
Khin’s holding the government 4x years instead of ¢wo ; but, in this matter,
our author himself gives the date of his being ousted from Lakhanawati as the
last month of 642 H.

THE SHAMSI[AH MALIKS IN HIND. 779

0271. At the outset [of his career] he became Cup-bearer,
and, after he had served the Sultan some time, he was
made Shrab-Dar [Purveyor of Drinkables], when before
the fortress of Gwaliyir. Subsequently, Barhamiin’ for
Barhanmiin] was assigned to him in fief; and, after some
time, the fief of Baran was entrusted to him.

When the Shamsi reign came to its termination, in the
outbreak of the Turkish Amirs in the camp of Sultan
Rukn-ud-Din, लित Shah, at Tara’in’, he was the ring-
leader. Cn the Rukni reign passing away, and the dis-
affection of Malik Jani and Malik तुत" towards Sultan
Raziyyat continuing, during the conflicts [which then took
place,] before the gate of the city of Dihli, between the
Turkish Amirs who were the slaves of the [late] Sultan
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, and who were present in the
service of Sultan Raziyyat’s Court, Malik Balban fell cap-
tive into the hands of the rebels. He again obtained his
release, and was treated with distinguished honour and

It seems utterly impossible, in the face of Ziya-ud-Din, Barani’s statement
about Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar’s son—Tatar Khan—that Tughril Khan-i-Yiz-
Bak, otherwise Sultan Mughis-ud-Din, who is said to have been mortally
wounded in the retreat from Kamriid, and died there, and the Tughril, who
also assumed the very same title of Mughig-ud-Din, and was killed on the
frontier of the Jaj-nagar territory, can be one and the same person; but such
the works above quoted consider to be the case ; and, from the remark of Mr.
Blochmann, in his ‘‘ Contributions” [Part I. fifth line, page 39], he seems to
entertain the same opinion.

Farther research may throw more light on this matter of Tughril Khian-i-
Yiiz-Bak’s, and Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar’s successor to the fief of Lakhanawati ;
but, at present, the matter is clouded in obscurity.

Thomas, in his ^ PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI,” gives, at page 8, a list of
the rulers and kings of Bengal, in which he styles Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiiz-Bak-
i-Tughril Khan, Yuaéeg, and ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiiz-Baki, Uszdegi, and, in
a note, says °^ These contrasts in the orthography follow the Persian text of
Minhaj-us-Siraj, who seems to have designed ८० mark a difference in the pro-
nunciation” ८ This is erroneous: the words are—@yjy and .5j9:—yd-i-
nisbat, is merely added to the last, and nothing indicates any g in the names.

1 This was in 624 H. See page 611.

> This is one of the two places referred to at page 746, and I fail to recognize
it. It is written, in the original, in various ways ; but the above is contained
in the majority of the copies—.,ye2,—and in others, according to the ratio in
which they are to be depended upon, y9a:— y3e-ay— 94 [Hindiin १] ८१५११
wom and yy» It may possibly be meant for Burhnawah, anglicized Bur-
nawa, Lat. 29° 7’, Long. 77° 29’.

3 Now A’zim-abad-i-Talawari, the scene of Rie Pithora’s victory and sub-
sequent defeat. See page 635.

+ Not they only : there were several others. See page 639.

3 7 2

780 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

favour ; and, when the reign of Sultan Raziyyat lapsed, and
the throne of sovereignty devolved on Sultan Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Bahram Shah, he was honoured as heretofore, until
the time when the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, the Wazir,
caused animosity to show itself between that Sultan and
his Turkish Amirs, as is recorded [under his reign].
Previous to this, the whole of the Amirs and Maliks had
entered into a compact together to expel Sultan Mu’izz-
ud-Din, Bahram Shah, from the throne. In the year
640 H., the whole of them, in concert together, advanced to
the gate of the city of Dihli’, and, for a period of five
months or more, this hostility and strife went on ; and, when
the city was taken by the Maliks [and Amirs], the ring-
leader in this outbreak was Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-
Kashlii Khan.

Early in the day on which the troops of the Amirs [and
Maliks] entered the city, Malik Balban proceeded to the
Royal Palace, and once, by his command, a proclamation
was circulated throughout the city [announcing his assump-
tion of the sovereignty]. Immediately, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-
Din, Aet-kin, of Kuhram, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-
luk, and Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim, and several other
Amirs, assembled at the mausoleum of Sultan Shams-ud-
Din, I-yal-timish—May he rest in peace!—and repudiated
that proclamation‘, and, in concert together, brought forth
the sons of the late Sultan [I-yal-timish], and the princes
who were in confinement. When Malik Balban became
aware of this, he took part with them, and they raised ’Ala-
ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, to the throne. He assigned the
territory of Nag-awr, together with an elephant’, to Malik
Balban, and he proceeded thither

After some time had passed, when an army of the
infidels of Chin [Mughals] appeared before the fortress of
Uchchah, and Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, marched
from the capital with the troops of Islam towards the river
Biah to repel them, Malik Balban came from Nag-awr with
a body of troops [and joined the Sultan’s army], and that

$ See under the reign, pages 658-662.

५ See pages 660 and 661 and note 1.

7 This was accounted a great honour in these days, as may be seen from
what is stated at page 650, note 5,

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 781

momentous affair terminated successfully. When the army
of infidels retired from before Uchchah precipitately, Malik
Balban returned to Nag-awr again, and Multan was placed
under his charge °.

When the Sultan of Islam, Nasir-ud-Duny4 wa ud-Din,
ascended the throne of sovereignty—May it ever continue!
—after Malik Balban had come [to Court ?] he, on several
occasions, made a request for Uchchah together with
Multan. This was acquiesced in, under the understanding
that the Siwalikh [territory] and Nag-awr should be
relinquished, by him, to other Maliks who are servants of
the government, and that the Court should have the
nomination [of them] ’.

After he brought Uchchah under his jurisdiction, he
still continued to retain possession of Nag-awr, and did not
relinquish it. The Sultan-i-Mu’azzam—The Almighty
perpetuate his reign!—with the Maliks of Islam—Be
victory always theirs !—particularly the Khan-i-Mu’azzam,
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam—Be his Khilafat’ perpetuated!—
determined to proceed from the capital in the direction of
Nag-awr. On the Sultan’s reaching that part, after making
much difficulty of the matter, and protracting as long as
possible, in the semblance of submission, Malik Balban
presented himself [in the Sultan’s presence], relinquished
Nag-awr, and proceeded towards Uchchah.

When the territory of Uchchah and Multan was made over
to Malik Balban’s charge from the sublime Court, Malik
Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh’, from the direction of [the

8 See note *, page 667, para. 4, and proceedings of Malik Saif-ud-Din,
Hasan, the Karlugh, in the last Section.

® Our author has just above said that Multan was made over to him before
this. He means that the understanding was, that, if he got Uchchah as, well
as Multan, Nag-awr was to be relinquished. After he was compelled to give
it up, Ulugh Khin’s brother, Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan, got that fief.
See page 798.

+ Khilafat signifies deputy-ship, or lieutenancy, as well as imperial dignity
and monarchy, but, under any circumstances, the Sultan was alive when this
was written.

2 Some details are necessary respecting the Karlugh Turks, which I must
reserve for the concluding Section, in which Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, again
appears, and his previous history is referred to. I will merely observe here,
that he had appeared before Multan long before this—soon after the death of
Sultan I-yal-timigh, who, it will be remembered [page 623], was marching

782 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

territory of] Banian brought an army before the gate of
Multan in order to possess himself of that city [and fortress],
and Malik Balban advanced from Uchchah to repel him.
When the two armies came opposite to each other, a band
of warriors and heroic men in Malik Balban’s service, to
the number of about fifty picked horsemen, having formed
a ring, attacked Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh,
charged into the centre [of his army], and Malik Hasan
was slain, the greater part of those heroic men, who dis-
played such impetuosity, having fallen in the attack.
Malik Balban entered the fortress of Multan; and the
Karlugh troops kept the death of their Malik concealed’,
and pitched their camp before the gate of the city of
Multan. Emissaries passed to and fro between the two
armies and discussed terms of peace, and the surrender of
Multan to the Karlughs. The peace was concluded, and
Malik Balban delivered up Multan to the Karlughs, and
returned towards Uchchah; and the Karlughs took pos-
session of Multan.

When Malik Balban became aware that Malik Hasan,
the Karlugh, had been killed, he repented of having given
up Multan, but it was useless. After some time, Malik
Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan-i-Sunkar, wrested Multan out
of the hands of the Karlughs, and took possession of it,
and located there Malik Kurez*. On Saturday, the 2nd
of the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 648 H., Malik Balban,
having advanced from Uchchah for the purpose of regain-
ing possession of Multan, appeared before the walls of that
fortress®. The writer of these words, two days subse-
towards the territory of Banian, when taken ill, and obliged to return to
Dihli, where he soon after died.

3 The whole band must have fallen or have been taken, otherwise the news
of Hasan’s having been slain would certainly have reached Malik Balban-i-
1६23015 Khan. Or, perhaps, the band, or, rather, the remainder of it, did
not know whether they had killed him or not, or whether he had only been
left for dead. Hasan’s son, who is referred to under Sultan Raziyyat’s reign
{note 7, page 644], and in the account of Ulugh Khan, farther on, and in the
last Section—Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad—would, probably, have

been the person to whom Multan was surrendered ; and it is strange our
author does not mention who succeeded Malik Hasan in the command of the

Karlughs.
+ He is the person referred to under the fifth year of Sultan Nisir-ud- Din,

Mahmiid Shah's reign, page 688.
§ Under the events of the year 648 H., at page 688, our author states that he

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 783

quently [to that], arrived before Multan from the illustrious
capital, Dihli, for the purpose of despatching [a number]
of male slaves to Khurasan*. After that he [the author]
continued at that place for a period of two months; and
the fortress did not come into Malik Balban’s possession,
and he returned again towards Uchchah.

Malik Sher Khian-i-Sunkar advanced from Tabarhindah
and Lohor, and appeared before the fortress of Uchchah
and invested it, and remained before it for some time.
Malik Balban, who was away from it at this period’, placing
confidence in this, that they were both of one house and of
one threshold*, unexpectedly, presented himself in the
camp of Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar, and seated himself
down in the latter’s pavilion, upon which Malik Sher
Khian-i-Sunkar manifested some show of regard towards
him, arose, and came out by way of the back of the
pavilion, giving directions to guard Malik Balban, and not
permit him to depart from the place until such time as
the garrison of Uchchah should surrender that fortress.
As Malik Balban was helpless and in straits, he gave
directions to the garrison of the fortress to surrender it to
Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar, who, after he had taken pos-
session of the fortress of Ochchah, set Malik Balban at
liberty, who came to the capital ’.

Having presented ' himself at Court, the [fief of the]

reached Multan on Wednesday, the 6th of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, of that year, and
that Malik Balban-i-Kaghlii Khan reached it from Uchchah, the same day.
In his account of Ulugh Khan, farther on, the same date is given.

® See note 7, page 686.

7 Under the events of Sultan Niasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah’s reign,
648 H., our author says he had an interview with Sher Khan, on the banks
of the Biah, on the 11th day of the second month of that year, when proceed-
ing to Multan [see page 687], and that Malik Balban-i-Kashli Khan reached
Multan, to endeavour to take it, on the same day that he himself reached it—
the 6th of the third month,

8 The ‘official’ Calcutta Printed Text and the ASS. from which it is
chiefly taken have #l.s!—nest —for ai.|—threshold.

9 See page 689. There he says, under the events of 649 H., that Malik
Balban-i-Kashli Khan began to act contumaciously at Nag-awr in that year,
and the Sultan had to move against him ; and that, after that, in the fourth
month of that same year, he presented himself at Dihli. Between that date,
and the date on which he made his submission, at Nag-awr, he had fallen into
Sher Khian’s hands.

५ Under Sultan Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah's reign, it is stated, that, on
the 22nd of Shawwil, 650 Hu. [in the account of Ulugh Khan, it is the 12th],

784 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

province of उपरत पा) with its dependencies was assigned
to him ; and, when the sublime.standards advanced towards
the upper parts [of the kingdom—the Biah and Lohor],
and the preserved city of Tabarhindah was recovered,
forces were nominated to march towards Uchchah and
Multan. Between Malik Sher Khian-i-Sunkar and the
Maliks of the Court, contention went on; and Sher Khan
proceeded into Turkistan?, and Uchchah and Multan were
entrusted, a second time, to Malik Balban’s charge >.

No sooner had Malik Balban taken possession of that
country than he became disloyal to the Court, and, making
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Kurt‘, the Ghiri, his medium,
preferred a request [through him] to Hula’ [Hulaka] the
Mughal, who was a Shah-zadah | Prince] of Turkistan °, for
a Shahnah ° [Intendant]. Malik Balban sent [to Hulaki’s
Court] a grand-son in pledge, and brought a Shahnah
thither [into Sind and Multan]. Subsequently, when the
Khan-i-Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, had returned to

the Sultan moved towards Lahor, intending to march to Uchchah and Multan,
and that Malik Kutlugh Khan from Bhianah, and Malik Balban-i-Kasbli
Khan from Buda’in, with their contingents, accompanied him. On reaching
the Biah, however, ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Ray}an’s plot developed itself, and Ulugh
Khan was banished to his fief.

Under the year 651 H., it is again stated that the Sultan marched from
Dihli to ‘‘secure’”” Uchchah and Multan, and that, on reaching the Biah [it
flowed in its old bed then], a force was detached to Tabarhindah to secure it,
as Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar had withdrawn to Turkistan, and that they were
taken possession of on the 26th of Zi-Hijjah, the last month of 651 H., and
made over to Malik Arsalan Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast ; but, in the account of the
latter Malik [page 767], it is said he got Tabarhindah, and Uchchah and
Multan are not mentioned.

2 See pages 695 and 792, where are two other and different statements, with
respect to the cause of Sher Khan-i-Sunkar’s withdrawal.

3 His restoration to the fief of Uchchah and Multan is never referred to
in any other place in the present work save the above, but that he was
restored to it there is, of course, no doubt from the context. It appears
probable that, when Ulugh Khan succeeded in ejecting ’Imad-ud-Din-i-
Rayhin from power at the end of 652 H., and on his being sent to rule at
Buda’iin, Malik Balban-i-Kashlii Khan got Uchchah and Multan again, some
time in 653 H. See also note >, page 692.

4 He will be noticed in the last Section with reference to the Mughal
invasion of the Panjab.

$ Hula’ii or Hulaki was, certainly, a Prince of Turkistin, but, at this time,
ruled over Iran on the part of his brother, Mangi Ka’an. More respecting
him will be found in the next Section.

५ He thus threw off his allegiance to Dihli.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 785

the Court, and Malik Kutlugh Khan had separated from
1६7 and had joined Malik Balban, and the Sultan and his
forces had returned to the capital, Malik Balban, in the year
655 H., suddenly resolved to advance to the frontiers of
the kingdom of Dihli with the troops of Uchchah and
Multan. When this determination and purpose [of the
confederates] was represented before the sublime throne,
the royal command was given to repel that faction, and
Malik Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, with the whole of the Maliks
and Amirs, marched against the troops of Malik Balban.

On the 15th® of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 655 H.,
when, within the limits of [the districts of ] Kuhram and
Samanah, they drew near [Malik Balban’s army], a faction
of seditious [persons] of the capital city, Dihli, consisting
of turban wearers [ priest-hood ] and cap-wearers® [Sayyids },
wrote and despatched letters secretly to Malik Balban,
soliciting him to come thither, saying: “In order that we
may deliver up the city to thee it behoveth thee to set out
for it”’ Malik Balban accordingly moved towards Dihli,
and, on Thursday, the 6th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 655 H., he
[and Kutlugh Khan and their forces] reached the environs
and suburbs of the city; but his conceptions were not
realized, and the faction, who had written letters to him,
had, by the sublime command, left the city '.

When Malik Balban reached the Bagh-i-Jiid [the Jiid
Garden]’, which is in the environs of the city of Dihli,
along with Malik Kutlugh Khan and the Malikah-i-Jahan
[Sultan Nasir-ud-Din’s mother], the account of the expul-

7 He had been sent away from the Court, with his wife, the Sultan’s mother,
as early as 653 H., but the events here referred to took place in 655 H., some
time previous to which Kutlugh Kban was in rebellion. See page 707.

° See page 707.

® Only turban-wearers are mentioned under the reign, but cap-wearers
merely refers to others besides the regular priest-hood, such as the descendants
and disciples of Zain-ud-Din, ’Ali, probably, who wore black caps or tiaras.
The allusion is to Sayyid Kutb-ud-Din, the Shaikh-ul-Islim, and this party.
See page 707.

1 They had been sent away out of the city four days before. See page 708.

2 In the Calcutta Printed Text, the word =+] एत - 1085 been invariably
mistaken for »,4—khiid, which signifies self, &c., and thereby the Jiid Garden
is turned into Ais own garden. The Bagh-i-Jiid, and Sabra-i-Jiid, are often
mentioned.

The account of this affair varies from that detailed under the reign, page 708,
and in the account of Ulugh Khan farther on.

786 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRE.

sion of that faction became known to them, and that flame of
the fire of hope [from the faction] was extinguished with
the water of disappointment. After the time of forenoon
prayers, they advanced to the gate® of the city, and made
a perambulation round the place. They remained at the
Bagh-i-Jiid for the night, and, at morning dawn, they came
to the determination to retire. On the Friday, which was
the 7th‘ of the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, the troops of
Uchchah and Multan, the whole of them, separated from
Malik Balban, and went off in bodies in various directions,
but the greater number were those [among them] who
entered the city, and who joined the service of the sublime
Court.

Malik Balban—the Almighty have him in His keeping!
—withdrew, and by way of the Siwalikh [country], and,
with a slight retinue, less than 200 or 300 in number,
returned to Uchchah again. Subsequent to these events,
Malik Balban came to the determination of undertaking a
journey into Khurdsan, and proceeding into ‘Irak to the
presence of Hula’i, the Mughal, who is a Shah-zadah
[Prince] of Turkistan’, and presented himself before him.
He returned from thence, and came back to his own place
of residence again [to Uchchah]; and, up to the date of
this narrative, which was the year 658 H., he has despatched
his own agents, along with the Shahnah [the Mughal
Intendant] of the territories of Sind, which was on account
of the army of Mughals [then on the Dihli frontier], to the
presence of the Court °.

Please God, it may turn out well and advantageously,

2 Our author always uses the word ‘‘ gate” when gates may be understood.
In this instance he may mean the gate on the side of the Jiid plain and garden.

4 According to some copies the dates are, respectively, the 26th and 27th
of Jamadi-ul-A khir.

$ It is remarkable that he should have gone to Hulaki’s camp in "Irak, and
Sher Khan to that of the Great Khan—Mangi Ka’an, in Turkistan. Their
object, probably, was the same.

® This refers to the return of Ulugh Khian’s agent despatched some time
before to Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Hasan, the Karligh, the
details of which affair will be found at the end of this Section. There he says
Shahnagan—Intendants-~as if there were more than one at Uchchah. The
Mughal army referred to, is that of the Ni-in, Sari, or Salin, as he is also
called, which entered Sind, a few months after Malik Balban’s attempt on
Dihli, in the latter part of 655 1, an account of which will be found at page 711,

THE SHAMS[AH MALIKS IN HIND. 787

and may He long preserve the Sultan of Islam, Nasir-ud-
Dunya wa ud-Din, Abi-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmid Shah, on the
throne of sovereignty !

XXI. MALIK NUSRAT KHAN, BADR-UD-DIN, SUNKAR.I-
SUFI’, THE RUMI.

Malik Nusrat Khan-i-Sunkar, the Sifi, is a Rimi
[Riimilian] by birth. He is a person of exceeding laudable
qualities and inestimable virtues, valiant and warlike, and
of good disposition, and adorned with all the attributes of
manliness and resclution.

He was a slave of the august Sultan Shams-ud-Din [-
yal-timish], and he had, in the reigns of every one of the
Sultans [his descendants], served in offices of every degree;
but, in the reign of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, in
the year 640 H., when the Turk Amirs rebelled and put
the Khwajah, Muhazzab, the Wazir, to death, this Malik,
Nusrat Khan-i-Sunkar, was one of the Amirs, the principal
ringleaders in that outbreak. After that event he became
Amir® of Kol; and he brought that territory under his
control, and, along with his retinue and the people, on the
beaten track of equity and justice, he passed his days. In
that same year [640 H.], the writer of these words, Minhaj-
i-Saraj, chanced to undertake a journey to Lakhanawati.
On reaching the district of Kol, this Amir of excellent
disposition treated him with great kindness and en-
couragement.

Subsequently, Malik Nusrat Khan-i-Sunkar obtained
other fiefs; and, in the reign of the Sultan of Sultans,
Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, the territory of Bhianah was
made his fief. He continued to remain some time in that
part, and many times punished the seditious and evil doers.
ˆ At the time when Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli

and in the biography of Ulugh Khan, but more particularly detailed in the
last Section.

7 He was of the Sifi sect, apparently.

9 Our author has never used the word Amir like this before: he generally
uses feudatory.

788 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Khan, advanced out of the territory of Sind and appeared
before the gate of Dihli, Malik Nusrat Khan-i-Sunkar, with
a numerous force, reached the city of Dihli from Bhianah.
The inhabitants of the city, and grandees of the Court,
were placed in safety ‘by his arrival at the head of a body
of troops. After that affair, in the year 657 H., from the
implicit faith which the Sultan of Islam placed in Malik
Nusrat Khan-i-Sunkar, and the powerful.support of the
Khan-i-Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, the preserved
city of Tabarhindah, and Sunam, Jhajhar, and Lakhwal, and
the frontiers, as far as the ferries over the river Biah, all were
conferred upon him’, and his title became Nusrat Khan.

On those frontiers he performed distinguished services,
and assembled a numerous body of troops ; and, up to the
date of this book’s [being written], by the sublime command,
he is still [stationed] on that frontier, with ample military
resources, and a large army’. May the Almighty long
preserve the Sultan of Sultans upon the throne of
sovereignty !

XXII. AZ KULLI DAD-BAK2, MALIK SAIF-UD-DIN, I-BAK,
THE SHAMSI, ’AJAMI.

Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, the Shamsi, ’Ajami, is, by

® It was at this period that Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar had the extensive
fiefs of Bhianah, Kol, Balarim, and Gwiliyir, conferred upon him ; but,
under that year, in the Sultan’s reign, the placing of these frontier territories
in Nusrat Khan-i-Sunkar’s charge is not stated. See page 794.

The mention of ‘‘the frontiers,” and the ‘‘ferries of the Biah,” taken
in connexion with the orders of Hulakii to his general, mentioned at the end
of the account of Ulugh Khan, plainly indicates the limits within which the
Dihli territory was now confined.

The Biah, as before stated, then flowed in its old bed,"entirely separate from
the Sutlaj. ।

1 Why are not his ‘‘ distinguished services” mentioned ; and, if he had such
‘‘ample military resources and large army,” why did he not drive away Sari,
the Nii-in, and his Mughals, who were making constant raids upon the Dihli
territory ? os

2 The Calcutta Printed Text has (61 instead of (४ ;! Amir-i-Dad, and
Dad-Bak, are synonymous, the former being Persian and the latter the Turkish
form, and the office appears to have been much the same as that of Mir-i-’Adl
in Akbar’s time. The words az €+; show that he was the head of that depart-
ment and exercised full powers. See note + page 529, and page 605, note ५

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 789

origin *, of Khifchak, a Malik adorned with justice, sagacity,
strictness, and judgment, and famed and celebrated for all
manner of energy and ability. In the learning of the
Musalmfan faith he was proficient, in religiousness perfect,
and in words and in deeds sincere, on the path of probity
and justice staunch and regular.

It must be about eighteen years + since the bench of the
administration of justice was adorned by his dignity ;
and, during the whole period, he has followed the path of
justice and equity, and been obedient to the canons of the
[Muhammadan] law, and beyond those which the law
decrees he has not added a tittle. The writer of this
History, Maulana Minhaj-i-Saraj—God protect him!—
upon two occasions, for nearly eight years, by the gracious
command of the Sultan of Sultans, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa
ud-Din—The Almighty perpetuate his rule and sove-
reignty !—is seated on the same bench with that just
Malik* in the Court of Justice at the capital city, Dihli,
and the author has seen that the whole of his acts, pro-
cedures, and expositions have been conformable with the
faith and its ordinances. By the dignity of his punish-
ments, and the majesty of his justice, the multitude of
contumacious [persons] round about the capital, and the
gangs of evil doers and robbers, having drawn back the
hand of violence within the sleeve of relinquishment and
suspension, are quiescent in the corner of fear and terror.

From the period when Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, became
enrolled among the series® of slaves of the Court of the
Shamsi dynasty—the asylum of the universe—he has, at
all times, been reverenced ; and every district, fief, or tract
of country, which has been entrusted to his charge, through
his equity and rigour, has become flourishing and pros-

3 His being styled ‘‘Shamsi, and ’Ajamf,” in this instance, means that,
originally, he was the slave of the Khwajah Shams-ud-Din, the ’Ajami.

* What year is referred to is left to conjecture, unless he means the year in
which he closed this history—658 H. He was, however, appointed Kazi of
the realm, for the second time, in 649 H. See page 690.

5 This expression shows that the term Malik is not peculiar to the military
only, and the fallacy of translating the word genera/, as in ELLIOT, in
numerous places.

५ Nearly every copy of the text, Calcutta Printed Text included, has ८७१.
—Sultins—for yyebl.—series, &c. In this instance the I. ©. L. A/S., No.
1952, and the R. A. S. 415.) are both correct.

790 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

perous, and the commonalty have dwelt in quiet and tran-
quillity, and have continued safe and exempt from oppres-
sion and violence. During this period since he has been the
Amir-i-Dad [Chief Justiciary] of the kingdom of Dihli, the
customary fees at the rate of ten or fifteen per cent, which
other Chief Justices before him have imposed, he has not
extorted, nor has he had any concern with such, neither has
he considered such to be legal.

At the outset of his career when he became severed from
the tribes of Khifchak and his native country, and through
the discord of kindred became a captive in the bonds of
misfortune, he chanced to fall into the service of the
generous Khwajah, Shams-ud-Din, the ’Ajami, who was the
Malik-ut-Tujjar’ [Chief of the Merchants] of the countries
of ’Ajam, "Irak, Khwarazm, and Ghaznin, and, up to this
period of time, they call Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, by the
term Shamsi, after that great man.

When Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, reached the sublime
Court of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish [along with his
master], and the Sultan purchased him,-he acquired favour
and influence. Perceiving the indications of energy and
vigour which were depicted on his brow, the august Sultan
used to send him upon important affairs into different parts
of the kingdom, and assign him duties, until, in the reign of
Sultan Raziyyat, he became Sahm-ul-Hasham [Marshal
of the Retinue *]. In the reign of Sultan Mu’'izz-ud-Din,
Bahram Shah, he became Amir-i-Dad [Justiciary] of
Karah; and, when the throne devolved on Sultan ’Ala-ud-
Din, Mas'id Shah, in the year 640 H., he became Amir.i-
Dad of the illustrious capital, the city of Dihli, and the
fief of the Amirs-i-Dad, and the bench [pertaining to that
office] passed to him.

After some time, when the throne devolved upon the
Sultan of Sultans, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Mahmid
Shah, the fief of Palwal and Kamah’, with the bench of

7 That is, Prince or Chief of the Merchants—a term often used in the
Arabian Nights, and applied to the chief or general syndic of the merchants,
trading exclusively with particular countries.

8 See note 5, page 150.

® In the Bharat-piir territory, on the route from Mathurah to Firiiz-pir,
39 miles N. W. of the former place, Lat. 27° 40’, Long. 77° 20’. It was taken
by Najaf Khan about eighty years since, and was then a small city fortified

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 791

the justice-ship, was entrusted to him ; and, after some
time, he obtained the fief of Baran; and, in that part,
inflicted condign punishment upon the contumacious.
Some time subsequently, Kasrak' [?], with the office of
chief justiciary, was given him in fief, and, after two years,
he again obtained Baran; and, up to this present time, it
is in his charge.

XXIII MALIK NUSRAT-UD-DIN?, SHER KHAN, SUNKAR-I-
SAGHALSUS 4,

Malik Sher Khan is a person consummately brave and
sagacious, and distinguished for all princely qualities, and
famed for all kingly accomplishments. He is the uncle’s
son ‘ of the Khan-i-Mu'azzam, Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, and,
in Turkistan, their fathers have been persons of import-
ance, and among the families of the Ilbari® [tribe] have
borne the name of Khan, and, for their numerous clan and
dependents, have been noted and renowned, each of whom
will, Please God, in the account of that Malik of the
Maliks of the universe, be separately mentioned.

Sher Khan was the slave of the august Sultan [I-yal-
timish] who purchased him‘; and he performed much ser-

with walls and towers. If sought after, perhaps some inscriptions might be
found at this place.

1 T fail to find this place, and there is great doubt as to the correct reading.
One of the oldest copies has YS as above, the second ०, the third is minus
a whole line, and another copy has #&S—Karak or Kuruk, which certainly is
the name of a place in |!.arianah, between Rot-hak and Bhawani, in
Lat. 28°, 49’, Long. 76°, 22', about 58 miles W. of Dihli. Other copies of
the text have what appears to be 3-5

2 In some copies he is also styled Baha-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din, instead of
Nusrat-ud-Din.

3 This word, which probably refers to a tribe, a family, or tract of country,
is contained in all the best copies of the text with the exception of the best
British Museum A/S., but is plainest in the best St. Petersburg 4/4. The
various ways in which it is written, as near as types will permit, are as follows:
—ptgelin— Ungelee— gyi and ७) 9. In a few copies he is also named Sanjar
instead of Sunkar.

+ Thomas, however [PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLf, page 125], turns him into
a brother of Ulugh Khian’s!

$ It seems somewhat strange that I-yal-timigh should also belong to the
Ilbari tribe, as well as Ulugh Khin, his brother, and his cousin, and all be
slaves of the former.

# Our author relates how Ulugh Khin and his brother became slaves, and
from whom they were purchased, but he appears not to have known much

792 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

vice before the throne, and the signs of worthiness were
indicated upon his brow. He served the Sultans of that
dynasty much in every rank and degree; and, when he
attained greatness, Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, at
the time he led an army from the capital towards Lohor’,
with the object of repelling the army of infidel Mughals
which was before the walls of the fortress of OUchchah,
assigned to Malik Sher Khan the fortress of Tabarhindah
and the whole of its dependencies as his fief.

Afterwards, when the Karlughs wrested Multan out of
the hands of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khan ,
Malik Sher Khan led an army from the preserved city of
Tabarhindah towards Multan, and liberated it again out of
the hands of the Karlughs, and placed therein Malik
Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kurez’®. Subsequently, upon several
occasions, contention arose between Malik Sher Khan and
Malik Balban, arising from their proximity to each other,
as has been previously stated; and Malik Sher Khan
wrested the fortress of Uchchah out of the hands of Malik
Balban, and the whole of the territory of Sind came under
the sway of Malik Sher Khan. When the Malik-i-
Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, led a body of forces'
towards Nag-awr, and strife went on between Malik Sher
Khan and him near the banks of the river Sind, Malik Sher
Khan [retired from thence], and proceeded towards Upper
Turkistan’, and went to the urd [camp] of the Mughal,
and presented himself at the Court of Mangia [Ka’an].

respecting Sher Khan's early years, or was unwilling to relate much on the
subject.

7 See page 667, and page 811.

9 See also the account of Malik Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, page 782.

9 It will be seen, from this, that these great Maliks were like so many
dependent kings, and had Maliks of theirown. Kurez is the person who, in
648 H., sent some Mughal prisoners to Dihli; and they were, evidently, so
rare, that, even for this small mercy, Dihli was decorated.

1 Our author gives no less than three other and different accounts of these
events—one, at page 693, another at page 794, and a third in his account of
Ulugh Khan, farther on. Leading ‘‘a body of forces towards Nag-awr” is
our author’s mode of stating the fact of Ulugh Khan’s banishment to his fief,
when ousted from power by the Rayhini plot, already referred to, and further
detailed in the account of Ulugh Khan. Strife, with his cousin, seems
altogether improbable, for, immediately on his return to Hind, he joined the
party of his cousin, Ulugh Khan, in ousting the Raybani clique.

2 This whole sentence is one of the most defective in the entire work : there

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 793

He returned with honour from thence, and set out
towards Lohor. When he arrived in the neighbourhood of
Lohor and these parts’, he joined Malik Jalal-ud-Din,
Mas’id Shah ^ son of the august Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-
yal-timish. In the end, matters did not go on without dis-
agreements between them, and Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid
Shah, retired in disappointment, and his dependents and
followers fell into the hands of Malik Sher Khan’s train म.

After that affair, Malik Sher Khan endeavoured to gain
possession of Tabarhindah [again], but, as Malik Taj-ud-
Din, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar [the then feudatory], issued
from the fortress [to oppose him], Malik Sher Khan was
under the necessity of withdrawing again. Swift mes-
sengers went from the capital from the nobles, and a
covenant and pledges were entered into, and Malik Sher
Khan proceeded and presented himself at Court®. Malik
Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, likewise came to the capital,
and [the fief of] Awadh was assigned to him, and Tabar-
hindah was [again] committed to Malik Sher Khan, with
the whole of the territory and fiefs which he had previously
held.

For some time he remained upon that frontier’, during

are scarcely two copies alike. One copy has something more after the words
** Upper Turkistan,” namely, that ^^ he proceeded towards Lohor, and every one
who used to see him, would bow down his head to the ground [.553! s4¢~,2]
out of awe of him.”

3 The neighbourhood of Dihli where our author wrote his History.

* This too is one of our author’s mysteries. I shall have to refer to it again.
See note >, page 699, and note 1, page 767.

* For some further particulars respecting this Prince, whose proceedings
are made a mystery of, see pages 683, 699, 818 and note ‘, and pages 830 to
834. I shall have to refer to him, in connexion with the Mughals, in the last
Section.

STEWART has written on the margin of the 4S. I have referred to in note १,
page 776, notwithstanding it is plainly indicated who Jalal-ud-Din was, that
he is ^“ Fallal Addeen King of Khuarism,” who died or disappeared from the
world nearly chirty-frve years before! ! See page 297, and note °.

° See under Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, page 768.

7 Although Lahor is mentioned, after fourteen years’ silence, as the fief of
Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah—probably half-brother only of Nasir-ud-
Din, Mahmiid Shah—in the ninth year of the latter's reign, page 700, it does
not again occur. It also appears that Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, held Lahor
with foreign aid, independent of Dihli. I shall have to refer to this matter
again. The frontier here referred to indicates, as in several other places, the
Kits of the Dihli kingdom in this direction—namely, the banks of the Biah,

3 £

794 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

which contention used to go on between him and Malik
’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khan, as on former occasions.
A mandate was issued from the sublime Court so that
Malik Sher Khan returned to the capital ; and, in order to
avert strife on the frontier, the fief of Tabarhindah was
entrusted to the charge of Malik Nusrat Khan, Sunkar-i-
Safi. The territory of Kol and Bhianah, and Balaram,
Jali-sar, Baltarah*®, Mihir and Mahawan, and the fortress of
Gwaliyiir, which is among the most famous strongholds of
Islam, were placed in Malik Sher Khan’s charge’; and
there he still is, up to the date that these pages were written,
in the month of Rajab, 658 H.

May the Most High God long preserve the Sultan-i-
Mu’azzam upon the throne of sovereignty"!

not as it at present flows, but when it ran in its old bed. See also page 818,
and note ५.

8 In the best copies +l), as above, but in one, instead of (9 we have 4)

9 On the 21st of the month of Safar, 657 H. See pages 712 and 788, and
the account of Ulugh Khan farther on. It is strange that such leniency was
shown to Malik Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, for this was after his attempt to seize
the capital, and after he had thrown off allegiance to the Dihli kingdom, and
had received a Mughal Shahnah. He appears always to have been treated
with the utmost consideration, and there must have been some reason for it.

1 It may not be amiss here to give an extract from the Tarikh-i-Firiz-
Shahi of Ziya-ud-Din, respecting Sher Khan, as there may be somewhat of
the leaven of correctness in it, but, at the same time, it shows that the state-
ments of Ziya-ud-Din are not to be wholly depended upon, at least for the
accounts of Sultan Balban’s reign. I take this from the printed text, which,
in many places, is lamentably incorrect. |

‘‘After four or five years of Sultaén Balban’s reign [had passed], thirty
years after the decease of Sultin Shams-ud-Din, Sher Khan, the uncle’s son
of Sultan Balban, who was a Khan greatly honoured, and who had become
as the Sadd-i-Yajiij Majiij [the Barrier of Gog and Magog, or Great Wall of
China] to the Mughals, died.”

[As Sultan Shams-ud-Din died in 633 H., Sher Khan, consequently, died
in 663 घ. According to Ziya-ud-Din, himself, Balban came to the throne in
662 H., but, according to others, Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmid Shah, did not die
until 664 H.]

‘*] have heard from some credible persons, that he, Sher Khan, used not to
come to Dihli, and that Sultan Balban caused poison to be administered to
him in his drink. [The word used 15 € > which is said to be a liquor made
from barley and other things, a sort of beer.] This Sher Khan had built a
lofty cupola at Bhatnir, and the fortresses of Bhatindah and Bhatnir are
among the places founded by him.

‘‘He was one of the great slaves of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, and one among
the CHIHL-GANIAN—of that Sultan—CA:A/—forty ; ganign—the plural form
of the redundant particle used after numerals—Briccs’ ‘ Zvorky tribe of

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 795

XXIV. MALIK SAIF-UD-DIN, I-BAK-I-KASHLI KHAN-US-
SULTANL

The Malik-ul-Hujab [Chief of Chamberlains], Saif-ud-
Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan*—on whom be peace !—was the

CHELGANY ”!]—every one of whom became styled by the title of Khan, and
Sher Khan had great confidence placed in him. From the reign of Nasir-ud-
Din [Mabmid Shah], Sunndm [in the text ,l~,b instead of -)—belonging
to the first clause of the sentence—and ,\—], Lohor, and Dibal-pir [in the
text j5¢¢2:-—Dind/-pir !) and other fiefs in the direction of the coming of the
Mughals, the whole he held.”

{The dependence to be placed upon the statements in this last sentence may
be judged of from our author’s account above—the statement of a contemporary
writer living at Dihli, who knew him personally, and the statement of one
‘who heard ” about these things ninety-five years after, and, who states that
he has only taken up the history of these times from the end of Nasir-ud-Din,
Mabmiid Shah’s reign, where our author left ‘off. Sher Khan did not hold
these fiefs during the period our author’s work embraces ; and so the last years
of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah’s reign still remain a blank with Ziya-ud-
Din, as with others. ]

‘* He [Sher Khan] entertained many thousand well-organized and efficient
cavalry in his service, and several times had he fallen upon the Mughals,
turned them upside down, and dispersed them, and caused the Khutbah to be
vead for Sultan Nastr-ud-Din at Ghaznin ; and, on account of his vigilance,
valour, strength, and grandeur, and the number of his followers, it was im-
possible for the Mughals to prowl around the frontiers of Hindistan” ! !

The statements contained in this paragraph are enough to stamp the Tarikh-
i-Ftriz Shahi for the history of this period as utter rubbish. Our author’s
statements respecting Sher Khan and the fiefs he held, and of the state of the
frontier on the Biah, in the latter part of his account of Ulugh Khin, show,
that these things were not true, and could not have been true. Malik Balban-
i-Kashli Khan, who held Sind and Multan, and who was in league with the
Mughals, is ignored altogether by Ziyaé-ud-Din; but he, like Sher Khan, was
living when our author closed his history. Fifishtah, probably, got his
version of this absurdity about Ghaznin from Ziya-ud-Din, only he relates it
as taking place in 649 H. See page 689, and note 8.

According to Ziya-ud Din, Sher Khan reduced under his subjection the
Jats, Khokhars, Bhatis, the Minis, and the Mandéhars, and was succeeded in
the fief of Sunndm by Tamur Khan, who was also one of the Chihl-ganian
He is not the person referred to by our author, at page 741, he having died
many years previously

2 At page 702, he is styled Malik Kashli Khan, Saif-ud-Din, I-bak
Sultani Shamsi [1. €. the slave of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish], and
further entitled, ‘‘ Ulugh Kutlugh, A’zam-i-Bar-Bak.”

There is no doubt, I think, but that the ’Ali-garh inscription given by
Thomas [PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI, page 129, and .by Blochmann, in his
Contributions, page 40] refers to him, as his brother, Ulugh Khan, is never,
throughout this work, styled ‘‘A’zam-i-Bar-Bak,”’ but his brother did hold the
office of Bar-Bak, and is styled Ksé/ugk and Saif-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din. He

3E 2

796 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

brother, paternally and maternally, of the Khan-i-Mv-
azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam. They were both two pearls
of one shell, two suns and two moons of one exalted con-
stellation, two rubies of one mine, two flowers of one par-
terre of prosperity, two Maliks of one royal Court, and two
great lords of one imperial conclave. Their lineage was
from the Khans of the Ilbari ; and, when the infidel Mughals
acquired predominance over the countries of Turkistan and
the tribes of Khifchak, as a matter of necessity, it became
incumbent on them to remove, with their families, de-
pendents, and effects, from their accustomed place of
abode.

Malik Kashli Khan-i-I-bak was the younger brother,
and the Khan-i-Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, the
elder. At this time the [future] Malik and Amir-i-Hajib
was of tender years; and, when they [the tribe] decamped
before the Mughals, on their way was marshy ground, and
the [future] Malik, the Amir-i-Hajib, in the night, fell out
of the waggon, in which he was, into the mud, and no one
had the power to take him out of the quagmire, because
the Mughals were at their heels. They urged forward
their waggons, and he [the child] remained in that same
place [where he fell]. Ulugh Khan returned to the spot
where his little brother was, and took him up. A second
time the Mughals came up behind them, and the [future]
Malik, the Amir-i-Hajib, fell into their hands.

By the decrees of heaven, a merchant, having purchased
him, brought him to the cities of Islam; andI khtiyar-ul-Mulk,
Rashid-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr, the Habash [Abyssinian], who
had proceeded from the Court of Dihli on a mission to Misr
[Egypt] and Baghdad’, purchased the [future] Malik, the

also held the fief in which ’Ali-garh, otherwise Sabit-garh, is situated, but not
until 653 H. I doubt, however, the correctness of the reading of Badan in
the inscription given in the first-named work.

The year 652 H., mentioned in the reading of this inscription, is that in
which Ulugh Khan and his party, who had been ousted from power, succeeded,
in the latter part of it, in regaining it ; and, at this time, his brother had been
recently deprived of his office, and sent to the fief of Karah. Whoever he was,
it would require a great stretch of the imagination to conceive what he had to
do with China—_».l

ॐ This, evidently, is connected with the arrival of the emissaries from
Baghdad, with a robe of honour, from the Khalifah, for I-yal-timigh, men-
tioned under the latter’s reign, at page 616, which see, and note >.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 797

Amir-i-Hajib, from that merchant. Indications of rectitude
were manifest on his brow, and Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk brought
him from thence‘ to the capital, Dihli, and the august
Sultan [I-yal-timish] purchased him of Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk.
The lights of intellect and intelligence, and the indications
of rectitude and sagacity were beaming upon his brow.
These words are written from a sense of justice and truth,
for, among the Turks, a Malik more sagacious, with more
modesty or more constancy, the eye of beholder never
gazed upon. The Most High God had graced him with
divers endowments of manliness and humanity, and
adorned him with laudable qualities and excellent conduct.

In wisdom and sagacity he excelled all the Wazirs of
the past, and, in valour and prowess, had placed the foot
of manhood higher on the pinnacle [ of perfection ?] than the
whole of the champions of Iran and Tiiran. May the Most
High God, in the gardens of bliss on high, confer upon him
pardon and mercy, and bless him; and continue the Khan-
i-Mu’azzam* [his brother], in sway and authority, per-
manent and perpetual! We now come to the topic of
history.

When the august Sultan purchased the [future] Malik,
the Amir-i-Hajib, he continued to serve in the Sultan’s

I-yal-timish evidently despatched this envoy to the court of the Khalifah
of Baghdad to seek from him a deed of investiture as sovereign of Hindiistan.
This was done probably after he had ^ secured ” all his rivals, and found himself
firmly established, and the person above mentioned was his envoy. The Khalj
Sultan of Lakhanawati appears to have done the same. See note page 774.

4 No place mentioned, but, from what is stated above, he may have
purchased him at Baghdad.

$ The Calcutta Printed Text, and two modern copies of the text, with. slight
variation, have the words—‘‘ who is the Badgshah of the age, and the Shahan-
Shah of the time” here ; and, from this, Thomas says, it is a proof that this
part of our author’s work was written when Balban was King of Dihli. There
are, however, many ०425 to the contrary, in the shape of several invocations
for the reigning Sultan and for Ulugh Khan in the same sentence farther on,
and a more particular proof in the fact, that this evident interpolation does
not occur in two of the three oldest copies of the text, nor even in the I. O. L.
MS. 1952, and R. A. S. 44S. By what follows after the word Mu’azzam we
need scarcely imagine, from the power which Ulugh Khan held as Deputy of
the kingdom under the puppet Sultan—the former possessing and exercising
the whole power in reality—that our author means that Nasir-ud-Din, Mal mid
Shah, was dead, for, a few lines farther on, such a doubt is set at rest com-
pletely. Our author evidently refers to his authority as Deputy of the
kingdom, and no more

798 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

own presence chamber, until, in the reign of Sultan Raziy-
yat, he became the deputy Sar-i-Jan-dar. After some
time, in the reign of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah,
he was made Sar-i-Jan-dar*®. Subsequently, during the
reign of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, he became
Amir-i-Akhur. He continued, in this manner, to exercise
that authority and office up to the time that the throne of
sovereignty became adorned with the august dignity of the
Sultan of Sultans, Nasgir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Mahmid
Shah—May God prolong his reign and sovereignty !—and,
when the Sultan conferred upon the Khan-i-Mu’azzam,
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam—May God prolong his prosperity!
—the name and title of Khan, the Malik, Kashli Khan, was
elevated from the office of Amir-i-Akhur to the dignity of
Amir-i-Hajib. When Nag-awr was taken from Malik
*Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, it was entrusted to
the charge of Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan, the
Amir-i-Hajib 7,

Whilst Malik Kashli Khan filled the office of Amir-i-
Hajib, he studied so much to please the great, the middle
rank, and the least in degree, as the pen cannot write, and
showed such regard and favour towards the Turk Maliks,
the Tajzik nobles, and the Khalj Amirs, as cannot be
contained within the limits of writing. All hearts became
filled with good-will towards him, and all persons felt
obliged by his favours. When the Khan-i-Mu’azzam,
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, departed*® for Nag-awr, they gave
the khittah [district or territory] of Karah to the Amir-i-
Hajib, Kashli Khan, his brother, and to that part he pro-
ceeded. When Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam returned to the Court
again, the Amir-i-Hajib returned likewise, and he became
Amir-i-Hajib the second time’.

After some time, when, in the month of Rabi’-ul-Akhir,
653 H., Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ’Ali [the Ghin,
who was the Lieutenant of the kingdom]—May he rest in
peace !—departed’ to the eternal mansion, the territory

¢ The printed text generally turns ,!sile—Jan-dar into ,!s.le— Jam-dar.

7 See pages 689 and 781.

8 When he was ousted from office, deprived of the fief of पद्यां, and forced
to content himself with the fief of Nag-awr. 9 See page 702.

1 He was put to death, and the reason of it is not plainly stated. 11४
another of our author's mysteries.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 799

and city of Mirat was placed in the Amir-i-Hajib’s charge,
to the skirt of the mountains of Bandiaran. During some
years he reduced under his sway those confines and districts,
and he took possession of the country within the mountain
territory of Bandiaran’*, as far as Rurki, and Mia-pir, and
extorted tribute, and overthrew २2025 and independent
[Hindi] tribes, and reduced them to subjection, until the
year 656 H., when weakness gained the ascendancy over his
dear body and delicate form, and his intestines became
swollen*. Through excessive modesty and bashfulness, he
did not make known the whole of his disease to any one,
and, for a period of some months, he endured affliction ;
and, as the appointed time was come, on Sunday, the 20th
of the month of Rajab, 657 H., he transmitted his blessed
soul, on the couch of pardon, attended by the escort of
sincere piety, to the presence of majesty and nearness of
glory.

May the Most High God keep in His protection the
sovereign of the present time, the Sultan of Sultans, Nasir-
ud- Dunya wa ud-Din, for the sake of His most illustrious
prophet, Muhammad! |

XXV. UL-KHAKAN-UL-MUA’ZZAM-UL-A’ZAM, BAHA-UL-
HAKK WA UD-DIN, ULUGH KHAN-I-BALBAN-US-SULTANI 4.

The Khakan-i-Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, is of

3 Six copies of the text, including the three oldest, have ८।,४५-१ as above,
two have ८।,५५-१ one ७१८०-१ one ७५५१ one ८ 714२४. one ८१५ : the others are
unintelligible. The Kuma’iin mountains are undoubtedly referred to, and
I should have expected the first part of the word to have been (5a:;—Nandi
or sii—Nandah. Nandah Diwi is the name of one of the peaks
overlooking them.

The second word is written _5,,'in the majority of the copies, in some (49
and _ Jo» [these are probably meant for _,5, , as, in AZS. 5 and , and 3 are much
alike if carelessly written], and 439 Mia-piir occurs in every copy collated
with a single exception, which has Maha.pir.

I have spelt Ruyki, as it should be written with the equivalent of Sanskrit
ड The Mia-pir, here mentioned, is probably Mia-piri, a very old place, a
little to the S.W. of Hardwar [Hrad-war].

3 Hernia probably.

4 That is, Balban, the Sultan’s slave. It is a wholly erroneous statement
that Ulugh Khan was called ‘‘ Baha-ud-Din Balban, Ulugh Khan:” the
title Baha-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din—a title bestowed by our author—is also given
to his cousin, Sher Khan, and to his brother, Saif-ud-Din, I-bak. Ulugh

800 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the posterity of the renowned [1805 ° of the Ilbari [tribe].
The father of Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan-i-Sunkar,
and the father of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam °, were born of one
father and one mother. The father of these two was ot
the seed of Abar’ Khan, the Ilbari, and he was the Khan
of about 10,000 families; and their affinity to the IJbari
[tribe] of Turkistan is well-known among the tribes of
Turks. At this period, the sons of his [Ulugh Khan's]
paternal uncle still continue to hold the name of greatness
among those tribes of Turks: this fact was heard [by the
author] from the late Malik, Kuret Khan-i-Sanjar.
Forasmuch as the Almighty God had willed to grant a
bulwark for the support of Islam and the stability of the
Muhammadi religion, and confer a shelter of protection in
[this] the end of the world, and keep Hindistan within the
area of His own favour and the sphere of integrity, He had
removed Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, in his youth, from Turk-
istan, and, on account of the domination of the Mughals in
that country, had severed him from his family and kinsmen,
and from among his tribes and people, so that they brought
him to Baghdad*®. The Khwajah, Jamal-ud-Din, of Basrah

Khin’s name, before he received that title, was Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban. See
Thomas: PATHAN KINGS, page 124.

$ There is not a word about ‘‘Khakdns” of the Ilbari either in the ALS.
copies of the text or the Calcutta Printed Text, as in Elliot: INDIA, vol. it
page 360. The word is ७५८ The renown of the ‘‘renowned” Khans above
mentioned is not recorded in history I believe. It is somewhat remarkable
that Shams-ud-Din, and his three slaves— Ulugh Khan, his brother, and their
cousin - should have been all of the same tribe, as I have before noticed. In
one copy of the text only, the name of the tribe is written ~: -- /éarri. It
is also strange that the name of Ulugh Khin’s father is not mentioned.

¢ Several copies of the text have ‘‘Sultin” instead of Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam, but the former may be attributed to over-zealous copyists.

7 This name is written in several ways, but the majority of copies have [i
—Abar, with the vowel points, some have «.i— Ayah, one 4!—Abah, one 4!
—Ayyah, and some leave it out altogether.

8 Some copies have ‘‘and from thence into Gujarat,” but this does not
occur in the oldest copies. Abi-’Abd-ullah, Mubammad, of Tanjirs, other-
wise, the son of Batitah, in his Travels, gives the following account of Ulugh
Khan, I quote the translation by Lee. ‘‘This man’s name was originally
Balaban [Balban]; his character had been just, discriminating, and mild : he
filled the office of Nawab [Nawwab] of India, under Nasir Oddin [Nasir-ud-
Din], for twenty years : he also reigned twenty years. . . . Whena child
he lived at Bokhara in the possession of one of its inhabitants, and was a little
despicable ill-looking wretch. Upon a time, a certain Fakeer saw him there,
and said, ‘ You little Turk !’ which is considered by them as a very reproachful

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 801

—on whom be peace!—who was noted for his piety,
honesty, resolution of purpose, and _ conscientiousness,
purchased him, and used to foster him in the hall of his
kindness like a son. As the signs of integrity and sagacity
were clear and manifest upon his sacred brow, he [the
Khwajah] was wont to look upon him with the eye of
benevolence, and regard him with special esteem ; and, in
the year 630 H., he brought Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam to the
capital city of Dihli, at which time the throne of sovereignty
was adorned with the sublime majesty of the august Sultan,
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish—May he rest in peace !—and
brought, along with him, several other Turks, to the
presence of the Sultan.

When the sacred look of that august monarch fell upon
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, under the auspices of his dignity
and sagacity, the whole of those Turks were disposed of,
and he was honoured with an office before the throne’.
As the lustre of felicity and the effulgence of prosperity

term. The reply was: ‘‘I am here, good Sir!” This surprised ‘the Fakeer,
who said to him, ‘Go and bring me one of those pomegranates,’ pointing to
some which had been exposed for sale in the street. The urchin replied, ‘Yes,
Sir ;’ and immediately, taking out all the money he had, went and bought
the pomegranate. When the Fakeer received it, he said to Balaban, ‘We
give you the kingdom of India.’ Upon which the boy kissed his own hand,
and said, ‘I have accepted of it, and am quite satisfied.’

‘‘It happened, about this time, that the Sultan Shams Oddin sent a mer-
chant to purchase slaves from Bokhara and Samarkand. He accordingly
bought a hundred, and Balaban was among them. When these Mamliiks
were brought before the Sultan, they all pleased him except Balaban, and him
he rejected, on account of his despicable appearance. Upon this, Balaban said to
the Emperor, ‘ Lord of the world ! why have you bought all these slaves?’
The Emperor smiled, and said, ‘For my own sake, no doubt.’ The slave
replied, ‘Buy me then, for God’s sake.’ ‘I will,’ said he. He then accepted
him, and placed him among the rest ; but, on account of the badness of his
appearance, gave him a situation among the cup-bearers”” ! !

Ulugh Khan has the reputation of having been a very fine man.

The traveller appears to have mixed up an anecdote respecting the Ata-Bak,
[latt-giz, of "Irak and Agarbaijan, and that related of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-
timish, by our author [page 600], into one delightful jumble.

There is a great deal more of such like nonsense as this, but the translator
mentions Firishtah, and quotes him—his text: not a translation —showing that,
according to the crude idea of the writer, he considers the name Ba/ban to be
that of a Turkish ८०८८ because several persons, so named, occur in Firishtah’s
history. After the same fashion I-bak would be the name of a Turkish tribe
perhaps. See also note 8, page 678.

9 {नलः ^" When the monarch observed him he bought af/ the lot of Turks
and appointed ¢hem to attend before his throne !”

802 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

shone upon his brow, the Sultan made him his Khasah-dar*
[personal attendant] as if he had placed the falcon of
dominion and power upon his sacred wrist; and, in fact,
this took place in order, that, in the reign of his children,
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam should restrain the enemies of the
realm from violence and bar their ambition, and so it turned
out to the end that the glory of the Shamsi sovereignty
might shine forth from the horizon of good fortune. Ulugh
Khin-i-A’zam continued to serve in that office; and, by
the will of heaven, he found his brother [the future] Kashli
Khan, the Amir-i-Hajib, again, and greatly rejoiced at his
re-appearance, and acquired strength therefrom.

When the throne of empire devolved upon Sultan Rukn-
ud-Din, Firiz Shah, Ulugh Khan went out of the capital along
with the Turks when they left it,and proceeded towards [up-
per ?] Hindistan’, and, when they were brought back, he
returned likewise, in their army, and was imprisoned for a
short time, and disappointment overspread his sacred face.
The purpose, in that incident, may have been—God knows!
—that he might realize the measure of misery of the grief-
stricken, so that, when he attained the felicity of dominion,
he might have compassion upon such persons, and give
thanks for the blessing of power.

1 Khasah-bardar is the name formerly applied to a soldier whose arms were
furnished by his master, and, in more recent times, applied to the bearer
of the (८८८४ box $ but we are not to suppose that Sultan I-yal-timigh was so
much of a Hindi as to chew fan supar?. The word above used seems to
signify a page, henchman, or personal attendant, perhaps a falconer.

The Tabakat-i-Akbari states that Ulugh Khan was the slave and damdd—
son-in-law, and sometimes, but rarely, used for the husband of the sovereign’s
sister—of I-yal-timish, and Firishtah, of course, agrees. But where is there the
least authority whatever for such a statement? Our author was not likely to con-
ceal such a matter as this, tending tothe glorification of his patron. To judge
from the fact of his causing himself to be proclaimed Sultan [see page 661],
the lenient manner in which he was treated after such continual and repeated
misconduct, and an elephant having been assigned him, Balban-i-Kaghlii Khan
is more likely to have been related by marriage to I-yal-timigh than Balban-i-
Ulugh Khan. Fancy Ibn-Batiitah’s ‘‘/sttle despicable ull-looking wretch,” his
master’s son-in-law! I-yal-timish died only about two years after the future
Ulugh Khin’s purchase, but Kashlii Khan was purchased in 624 H.

2 This refers to the affair which culminated at Tara’in in 634. See

page 638.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 803

ANECDOTE.

They have related that there was a monarch at the acme
of felicity and the zenith of dominion. He had a son of
extreme beauty and sagacity, merit and innocence. That
monarch commanded, so that wherever wise, intelligent,
learned, and accomplished persons were [to be found],
they got them together for the purpose of instructing that
son ; and one of those accomplished men, who was superior
to the others, and excelled the rest in a variety of wisdom,
knowledge, and learning, and various arts and sciences,
was selected by the monarch, and placed in charge of the
education of that light of his eyes, his son.

The king commanded, saying: “It is necessary that this
son of mine should acquire instruction in, and information
respecting, the theory of the truths of religion, and thorough
knowledge of the difficulties of power, the subtile distinc-
tions of knowledge, the treasuring up of information, the
conditions of government, the institutions of prosperity,
the ways of fostering subjects, and the laws respecting the
dispensation of justice, and that he should be acquainted
with the contingencies and complications of them all.”

That learned man placed the face of acceptance to the
ground of service, and occupied himself in his task. When
the prescribed period of the youth’s education terminated,
and the seeds of instruction came up, and the honorary
robe of erudition became fitted to the person, and that son,
the one fruit of the king’s tree, became embellished in all
accomplishments, they made known to the monarch the
matter of his son’s perfect acquirements. He commanded,
saying: “It is necessary that the preceptor should be
present in the audience-hall of sovereignty to-morrow at
morning dawn; and let the prince also be brought thither,
in order that the divers pearls of learning, which he has
acquired, he may string upon the thread of demonstration,
so that gentle and simple—high and low—may become
enlightened and cognizant of the perfect knowledge, the
elegance of attainments, the realities of capacity, and
performances of penetration of my son.”

On this command being issued, the preceptor solicited
three days’ delay from the monarch; and, on his request

8०4 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

being granted, the preceptor, early in the morning of the
[next] day, mounted, and brought forth the young prince
from the city for the purpose of taking a ramble. After
they had passed beyond the habitations, the preceptor
made the prince dismount, and constrained him to walk on
in front of his [the preceptor’s] horse, and obliged him to
run along several leagues to keep up with his horse's
cantering, in such wise that the delicate person of the
prince became excessively afflicted from the fatigue of
walking and running. So he brought him back to the
city again.

The second day, the preceptor entered the school-room,
and commanded the prince, saying: “ Get up, and remain
standing ;” and, in this way, he kept him standing during
the whole day, in such wise that the prince’s tender body
was sorely pained. When the third day came, the pre-
ceptor entered the school-room, and directed that the place
should be cleared, tied the hands and feet of the king’s son
together, and inflicted upon him more than a hundred
blows with a cane; and, from the severity of the flogging,
all the limbs of the young prince’s body, from the number
of blows, became wounded. He left him thus bound,
repeated the invocation before flight’, and disappeared.

A number of servants, on becoming aware of the circum-
stance, liberated the king’s son from his bonds, and sought
for the preceptor, but could not find him. They made a
representation to the king, and he directed them to bring
his son before him; and, upon every science wherein they
questioned him, they found him so proficient that “there
is no exceeding perfection” fitly described his proficiency.
The king remarked, saying: “ The preceptor, in teaching
and instructing, and making his pupil perfect, has, by the
grace of Almighty God, not neglected the least thing. It
would be well to know the cause of these cuts and hurts,
and what was the reason of his flight.”

He commanded, so that they used their utmost endea-
vours in seeking the preceptor; and, after a considerable
time, and at a distant period, they again found him, and
brought him into the monarch’s presence. He showed
the preceptor great reverence and honour, and inquired of

3 A prayer or invocation according to Musalman custom.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 805

him the motive of the severe flogging, and compelling the
young prince to run on foot on the first day, making him
stand all the second day, the reason of leaving him bound,
and the cause of his own disappearance, on the third. The
preceptor, bowing the head of service to the ground of
representation, replied: “ May the king’s felicity continue !
It will be manifest to the sublime mind, that it behoveth
the possessor of dominion to understand the condition of
those persons who are objects of commendation and
approval, and likewise the state of those individuals who
are the objects of indignation and reprehension, so that
whatever he may command in such circumstances may be
fitting; and, in no manner whatsoever, either in pleasure
or displeasure, may he deviate from the bounds of modera-
tion. Your slave was desirous of making the prince
acquainted with the condition of the oppressed, the captive,
and of the numbers who have to run before [his] horse, of
the people who may have to remain standing [before him],
and of the state of those persons who may have become
deserving of condign punishment, or of being made public
examples of, so that, when exercising his royal wrath, he
may conceive what measure of distress and pain their hearts
and bodies suffer, and that, when he should have endured
somewhat of such severities, whatsoever he may direct as
regards punishment, running, or standing, he may do so in
proportion to their powers of endurance and strength. The
reason, moreover of my flight and disappearance was
apprehension, since the noble person and delicate frame of
the prince had sustained affliction, lest parental affection
should have induced the king, in requital of such act on
the part of his humble servant, to have censured him,
whereby all his pains and labours would have been thrown
away.”

This anecdote was applicable to the case of Ulugh Khan-
i-A’zam in the amount of trouble that befell him in being |
brought back again to the capital among the Turks‘, in
order that, when he attained unto power, and became
Lieutenant of the kingdom *, he might be cognizant of the

* It would be interesting to know why he was treated in this manner, but
the reason does not transpire.
5 The word used in one of the best and oldest copies of the text is le 6

806 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

condition of the broken and oppressed. May Almighty
God cause justice and beneficence to be the associate of
all his acts and proceedings!

We have returned to the subject of the narration of this
history.

When the sovereignty devolved upon Sultan Raziyyat,
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam was, 25 before, Khasah-dar, until
good fortune came to his aid, and he became Amir-i-Shikar
(Chief Huntsman]. The ball of fate was saying : “2. world
will be the quarry of his power, and a universe the prey of
his authority,” hence the first of his offices was that of the
Chief Huntsmanship. When he had filled that ofice some
time, and had done approved service, suddenly, the sun of
the Raziyyat dynasty came to its setting, and the luminary
of the Mu’izzi sovereignty arose, and the Ulugh Khani
prosperity began to increase. As in the duties of Chief
Huntsman he had filled that office well, and done ap-
proved service, he became Amir-i-Akhur, and the horses
of state and of sovereignty came under the bridle of his
possession. When Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, the Sifi,
was made Amir-i-Hajib, he, having a parental affection
towards Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, showed a sincere regard for
his welfare, and raised Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam to a still
higher degree. The रला" of Riwari was entrusted to his
charge ; and, when he proceeded to that part, he thoroughly
chastized the independent [Hindu] tribes of the Koh-payah’
by the power of his valour, and reduced those tracts under
his jurisdiction.

When the Mu’izzi sovereignty began to totter, and the
Maliks, in concert together, appeared before the gate of the
city [of Dihli], and the whole of the Amirs and Maliks

as above, and another has thi. wl but, if I left out the word +
deputy or lieutenant—the sense would be materially changed, and it would be *‘in
order that when he attained unto power and sovereignty,’’ &c.,—but this is not
meant by our author—and it might then naturally be supposed, by a reader, tnat
this history was written during Balban’s reign, र्भ one solitary passage were
sufficient to prove it, contrary to scores of others. See note », page 797.

6 Not ‘‘ lands :” it was an extensive and important tract of country, as the
context shows.

7 In ELLIOT, page 362, the words wy s,5 oly are rendered ‘hill chiefs,”
but in several other places the word is not translated at all, and ‘‘ the Mawahs”
are introduced as if the word was a proper name. The Koh-payah is a tract
repeatedly mentioned, the /:¢era/ meaning of which is “‘ hill skirt.”

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 807

conspired among themselves, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam—May
his power be perpetuated *!—who was feudatory of रण्वन,
in concert with other Maliks® and Amirs, displayed so much
sagacity in ascertaining the aims and intentionsof the Maliks,
that among the whole of them—Turk or Tajzik, not one
attained to the hundredth part thereof; and the whole [of
them] admitted his firmness, heroism, intrepidity, and
enterprise to be greater than that of all the Maliks and
Amirs of that period. On the city being taken, the fief of
Hansi was made over to his charge,’ and, on that territory
coming under his control, he turned his attention to its cul-
tivation and improvement; and the people, from the effects
of his justice and conspicuous liberality, became contented
and prosperous.

Ulugh Khan’s affairs becameso flourishing,’ that the whole
of the Maliksand Amirs began to be jealous at the freshness
of his good fortune, and envy’s disquieting thorn began to
prick their minds, but, as Almighty God had willed that he
should be greater than the whole [of them], by how much
the more the fire of their envy increased, by so much the
more did the incense of his prosperity, within the censer
of time, diffuse additional perfume: “They endeavour
to extinguish the light of God with (the breath of] their
mouths, but God rejects aught but the perfection of his
light."—-May Almighty God prolong his office of power,

® The Printed Text, and two A/S. copies—modern ones—but neither of them
the I. 0. L. 5. , No. 1952, nor the R. A. S. 9. , have ^" the Sultin—May
his dominion and sovereignty continue !—who was feudatory of Riwari,” &c.,
which convinces Mr. Dowson [ELLIOT : vol. ii. page 362] ‘‘that this part of
the work was written in the reign of Balban.” The majority of copies, how-
ever, including the oldest, have as rendered above. See note +, next page.

9 The word ‘‘ Maliks,”’ here, does not signify princes any more than it does
kings: it refers to those persons, with a single exception, slaves, mentioned in
this Section. Compare ELLIOT here.

1 In a few copies ‘‘ to the charge of his retainers.”

> Here is a good proof of how the Calcutta Printed Text—the ‘‘official Text”
—has been ‘‘revised” before printing. It has, whilst referring to Ulugh
Khan the whole time—sm, Jle ७५ (39 6 ;—thus turning him into a
Sultan, a guarter of a century too soon. All the best copies have the name
of Ulugh Khan, where Sultan has been inserted in the Printed Text, or
Ulugh Khiani, which latter mode of writing makes it ‘‘the prosperity of the
(ण्ट Khani affairs,” whilst the first would be “ the prosperity of the Ulugh
Khan affairs.” In two modem copies of the text, the word ७ ५५. has been
written in mistake for J ॥ >,

808 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and make this servant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saraj, who is
the author of this TABAKAT, feel due gratitude towards him,
for his’ abundant benefactions combined with respect, for,
should a thousand sections of paper be filled with closely
written encomiums on his admirable qualities and inesti-
mable virtues, it would be but as a drop in the vast ocean,
and not even a single particle from out of the fragrance
from the paradise-like flower garden [thereof ] would have
affected the smelling sense of hearer or reader; and,
should a hundred thousand such-like effusions be composed,
out of gratitude for the princely countenance of this
great lord, at the foot-step of the exalted throne of the
king of the sovereigns of the face of the earth—May God
perpetuate his dominion and sovereignty !—towards this
servant, inthe entrusting of offices, the bestowal of appoint-
ments, and abundant benefactions, together with honour
and reverence, which he still continues to bestow, even yet,
the debts of gratitude will be due to him, in return for
those benefits, by this servant, by his children, and by his
family. May the Almighty God long preserve his high
majesty, the Sultan of the Sultans of the universe, NASIR-
UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, ABO-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMUOD
SHAH, in the pomp of power, decked in the jewels of submis-
sion, and adorned with the garment of the services of that
KHAKAN-I-MU’AZZAM, the Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, to the
utmost bounds of possibility in the revolution of time,’ for
the sake of Muhammad and the whole of his posterity ! ‘

We have returned to the subject of this history.

This frail one, in the year 640 H., chanced to undertake
a journey to Lakhanawati. On this journey he continued
two years with his family and dependents. Trustworthy

$ But two copies have the correct word here, which is _<=ls—celestial—all
the rest have _ aml. the adjective derived from el.—Malik, or Mulk.

+ Had those, who looked upon the imperfect passages in the Printed Text
for ‘‘ proofs” that this account of Ulugh Khan was written in his reign, read
or translated this passage, where ‘‘ 74८ author continues in a high strain of
benediction and eulogy,” they would have found undoubted proof that Ulugh
Khan was not king when this was written. He was, however, father-in. law
to the Sultan and his Deputy or Lieutenant, in fact, his master, and possessed
all the power, and Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, was a mere puppet. It is
somewhat strange that there is not the most remote allusion to Ulugh Khan’s
having been manumitted throughout this work. It seems scarcely possible
that he was still a slave.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 809

persons have related on this wise, that, in the year 642 H.’,
the Khakan-i-Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam °, became
Amir-i- Hajibin the illustrious capital, Dihli, when the august
standards—may victory and success expand them !—moved
out of Dihli, into the Do-ab of the [प्ता and Gang, and when
he gave the rebels of Jarali and Datoli’, and other indepen-
dent [Hindi] tribes, a thorough chastisement, and carried
on holy war, as by the faith enjoined, and the roads in the
adjacent parts of that territory were cleared of the violence
of the contumacious*®. The author of this work [at this
time], in conformity with the sublime commands, in com-
pany with Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan,
returned from Lakhanawati again with his family and
dependents, and arrived at the capital, Dihli, in the year
643 H.

In this same year, Mangitah' the accursed, who was
one of the Mughal leaders, and of the Maliks of Turkistan,
led an army from the borders of Tae-kan* and Kunduz,
into the territories of Sind, and invested the fortress of
Uchchah, which is one of the famous strongholds of the
country of Sind, and of the territory’ of Mansiirah. Within

5 The Calcutta Printed Text has 642 H.; and 641 H., as in ELLIOT, is
incorrect. See page 664, and note >.

¢ He is thus styled, except at page 810, throughout the remainder of this
work, but I shall, for simplicity’s sake, merely style him as previously, Ulugh
Khan-i-A’zam.

7 Every copy of the text has _J\,» as above with very trifling differences, and
the oldest and best copies have also 459 as above, but some have Jy. which
seems intended for the same, but the copyists have put the points under and
made the letter .s instead of = and a few have no points at all. I fail torecog-
nize these places. There is a Jurowli in Lat. 28° 17’, Long. 78° 17’, in the
Survey Map, and a place named Atrowli, in Lat. 28° 2’, Long. 78° 20’.

8 This is not mentioned under the reign. See page 663, and note 9.

9 See page 667, and 735.

1 In some few copies Mangiti, which is not correct. In ELLIOT, vol. ii.
page 363, Mr. Dowson makes Mangii Khan of him, although his name is
given correctly in the text. The Great Khan, Mangi Ka’an, was never east of
the Indus in his life.

2 Two of the three oldest copies have .,i1L—Tal-kan—here, the third oldest
and others ,\J\L—Tal-kan, and .,lé,\b—Tae-kan, and some have no points to
the third letter, hence it may be read Tae-kan or Tal-kan. The place intended
is that cast of ‘‘ Kunduz,” and is correctly Tae-kan as distinct from Tal-kan of
Tukhiristan. I shall have to refer again to these places in the last Section, as
they are very liable to be mistaken one for the othér.

> The word .4,' does not mean ‘‘equal to.” The Printed Text is quite
correct here, and ‘‘the words” are ‘‘as precise” as they are anywhere through-

3 F

810 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

that fortress a Khwajah 58126 [Eunuch], one of the servants
of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr, son of [the late] Malik
’Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan, Ay4az-i-Hazar-Mardah, named
Mukhlis-ud-Din, was the Kotwal-Bak [Seneschal], and a
slaveof Kabir Khan, Ak-Sunkar, by name, was the Amir-i-
Dad [Lord Justiciary].

When intimation of this irruption reached the capital,
Malik Ulugh Khan‘ represented it® for the sublime con-
sideration, and caused an army to be organized for the
purpose of repelling the Mughals. While every one of the
[other] Amirs and Maliks* was showing indecision about this
undertaking, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam showed determination in
carrying it out ; and, when the royal standards moved for-

out that work. See EL.iot: vol. ii. page 363. The very same word, at
page 303 of that work, is rendered ‘‘ lands.”

Malik ’Izz-nd-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz, and his son Taj-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr,
are both mentioned at page 727, and there it is stated that, when the Mughals
under the Ni-in, Mangiitah, turned their faces towards Lohor, Kabir Khin-i-
Ayaz, who was feudatory of Multan, assumed sovereignty, and soon after, in
639 H., died. The death of his son is also recorded, but nothing whatever
respecting this attack upon Uchchah, which must have happened after the
son’s death, the date of which is not given.

There is an excellent specimen of the lamentable errors that may be caused
through not knowing when and where the sg4/at—so ‘‘ un- Persian, ” and ‘‘never
used to signify son of,” according to Mr. Blochmann [See APPENDIX C., xvii,
and his «न Bengal Contributions,” part iii. page 138], and which (^ क restricted to
poetry, and does not occur in prose” —ought to be used, in the extract from our
author’s work given in ELLioT. The following is the rendering of this passage
in that work, vol. ii. page 363. ^^ He laid siege to Uch, one of the most
renowned fortresses of Sindh, and «gual ¢o Manstra. There was a eunuch in
(command of) the fort who belonged to the household of Taji-d-din. Abi
Bakr-Kabtlr Khdn Aksunkar was chief justice, and Mukhlisu-d-din was
kotwal.” This last rendering is well worthy Mr. Blochmann’s attention.

Here we have Taj-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr’s title and name separated into toe
parts, then his name is given to his father, Kabir Khan, and the father’s name
and title, and his son’s name also, are all given to Kabir Khan’s SLAVE eohose
name was A\k-Sunkar. I need but add that, in this instance, the Calcutta
८५ official’? Text is perfectly correct with the exception of not having all the
father’s names and titles recorded as above: had they all been contained in
it, what a number might not have been heaped upon the slave! Kabir Khan's
titles, and his son’s will be found at pages 724— 727.

4 He is thus styled in the text, but did not receive the title of Ulugh Khan
until many years after—in 664 H. At this period he was Malik Ghiyas-ud-
Din, Balban, only.

5 Not “this views.” He brought it to the Sultan’s notice by virtue of the
office he held. He was the cause of an army’s being got ready. See page 667
and note 4.

५ See note », page 807.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 811

ward towards that [threatened] quarter, Ulugh Khian-i-
A’'zam—Be his power prolonged !—despatched guides in
advance on the line of route, so that [the troops] used to
get over the marches with rapidity. He was wont to repre-
sent to the troops that the [next] halting-ground would be
about eight &uroh’ off, and [consequently] about twelve
kuroh, and even more than that they used to march, until
the forces reached the banks of the 8121, and passed over
that river, and he conducted them to the banks of the river.
Rawah [Rawi] of Lohor *.

In this manner used he to show such-like determination
on this expedition, and such lion-heartedness, and was
wont to stimulate the Sultan and Maliks to repel the infidel
Mughals, until Monday, the 25th of the month of Sha’ban,
643 H., when intimation reached the royal camp that the
army of infidel Mughals had raised the investment of the
fortress of Uchchah. The cause of it was, that, on reach-
ing the vicinity of the river Biah, Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam
appointed couriers, and directed so that they wrote letters
from the sublime presence to the garrison of the fort of
(61011211, and announced to them the approach of the
royal standards, the vast numbers of the array and ele-
phants, the host of cavalry with the army, and the courage
of the soldiery in attendance at the august stirrup, and
despatched them towards the fortress of Uchchah. A
division from the army was moved on in front, to act as a
reconnoitring force and advance guard.

When the couriers reached the vicinity of Uchchah, a
few of these letters fell into the hands of the host of the
accursed, and some reached the people of the fortress. On
the drum of joy being beaten in the fort, and the subject of
the letters, the advance of the victorious army, and
approach of the royal standards, becoming manifest to the

7 His object, in making the troops believe that the marches were much
shorter than they were in reality, can be easily seen through, but compare
ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 363.

8 There is nothing in the text about ‘‘ reaching Lahore:” it is the Rawah
[in some, Rawt] of Lohor. See also page 726, and page 792.

As the Biah and Rawi then flowed, before the Sutlaj ran in its present bed,
the Dilhi forces would have been in a position to threaten the Mughal line of
retreat, as stated farther on, and would have marched down the Do-abah and
reached Uchchah without having any other river to cross. See the note on
the Lost River or Hakra, and the changes in the beds of the Panjab rivers.

2k 2

812 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

accursed Mangitah, and the cavalry of the advance guard
approaching the banks of the river Biah of Lohor, near to
the frontiers of the territory of Sind, fear and terror became
manifest in the heart and spirit of the Mughal [leader], and
the favour of the Creator became a helper” [of the Dihli

army ].
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that, when

Mangiitah became aware of the advance of the army of
Islam, and approach of the royal standards, and that the
army moved towards the river Biah, near the skirts of the
mountains, and from thence, in the same manner, was
marching along the banks of that river, he made inquiry of
some persons? what might be the reason of the deviation
of the army of Islam towards the skirts of the hills, because
that was a longer route, while that by way of Sursuti and
Marit? was near. They replied that, on account of the
number of islands on the banks of the river’, there might

9 See under the reign of Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, page 667.

1 Not “ prisoners ” necessarily.

2 Compare ELLioT, vol. ii. page 364, where Marit is supposed to be
intended for Mirat. It is the same place as mentioned at page 350 of the
same volume, where the same error is made. See also page 688.

Marit is a well known place. It is a small town with a bastioned wall, 11
the direct route from Dihli to Bahawal-pir and Uchchah, and to Bahawal-pir
and Multan. Itis only about five degrees west of ‘‘ Mirat,” if that east of ॥ 81.11
is referred to. Bahawal-piir is, comparatively, quite a modern town. The
Mughals seem to have been pretty well acquainted with the geography of
these parts.

3 Sic in SS. Long narrow banks of sand, probably extending in some
places for several miles, and, sometimes, of some height, are doubtless meant
here, such as are formed after the annual inundations, with water, some-
times of considerable depth, between. These would have caused great obstruc-
tions, and have taken much time to cross, and, therefore, the forces of Dihli kept
farther north, and made their march a flank movement at the same time, which
may have been the original intention. In what direction they went may be
seen farther on.

The above passage, as rendered in ELLIOT, is quoted by the writer of an
interesting article in one of the numbers of the Calcutta Review for 1874,
entitled ‘*THE LosT RIVER OF THE INDIAN DESERT,” to prove his theory
respecting it ; but the passage in question is not correct in the Calcutta
Printed Text, neither is it quite correctly rendered in the translation referred
to. The word in the printed text which is supposed to mean ‘‘ fissaves”
[plural], namely j» is but part of the word +); signifying eslands, &c.; and,
moreover, the writer in the Calcutta Review does not quote ELLIOT correctly.
He says. ‘‘It is stated in the Tabakat-i-Nasiri that when Uchh was besieged
by the Mughals in 643 H. (A.D. 1245) the army sent to its relief was snadie to
march by Sarsuti and Afaro/, in consequence of the drought on the banks

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 813

not bea road for the army of Islam. Mangitah remarked :
“This is a vast army: we have not the power to resist it:
it is necessary to retire ;” and fear overcame him and his
army lest, if they remained longer, their line of retreat
should be cut off *. Their army was formed into three divi-
sions, and routed, they fled, and numerous captives, both
Musalman and Hindi, obtained their liberty [in conse-
quence]. The instrument of that success was the vigour,
the military talent, intrepidity, and zeal of Ulugh Khin-i-
A’zam‘', for, had he not shown such lion-heartedness and
heroism, such a success would not have resulted. Almighty
God of His favour and beneficence haye him in His
keeping !

After such a success came to pass, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam
represented that it was advisable that the royal forces
should move towards the river Stidharah, in order that their
strength, their number, valour, and energy might be esta-
blished in the hearts and minds of the enemy, and, accord-
ing to that counsel, the army marched to the banks of the

of the river.” Neither is drought nor inability to march mentioned in our
author’s text, and, even in the passage in ELLIOT, there is not a word about
drought.

The lower part of the course of the present Gharah, which formed, or close
to which lay, at the period in question, the bed of the Biah, before they flowed
in the same channel, had low banks of soft alluvial earth which were over-
flowed to the extent of several miles on occasion of the slightest swell.

I shall probably have to refer to this article on the ‘‘LosT RIVER” again
when I come to the account of the investment of Uchchah in the next Section.
The mention of this lost river 15 by no means new: a great deal respecting it is
contained in a geographical work in Persian, written in the last century from
a personal survey, and to which excellent work I have often referred in
these notes.

+ Compare this passage in ELLIOT.

§ Our author had forgotten, probably, that he had just before attributed this
favourable upshot of the affair to Divine aid, and forgets to mention, here, the
wide spread disaffection, at this very time, in ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah’s
army. See page 668.

I think it is rather doubtful, from our author’s own words, in his previous
accounts of this reign, whether Ulugh Khan possessed such power at this time.
As Amir-i-Hajib, no doubt it was very considerable, but there were a great
number of powerful Maliks living at this period, who brought about the
dethronement of ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, and set up his uncle, Nasir-ud-
Din, Mabmiid Shah. Our author does not mention Ulugh Khan’s having
had anything in particular to. do with that matter, and would scarcely have
omitted to mention it, had he been the instrument of the latter’s accession to
the throne.

814 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

river Siidharah’, until, on the 27th of the month of Shaw-
wal, 643 H., the army set out from the banks of the Siid-
harah on its return to the capital, Dihli, which was reached
on Monday, the 12th of the month of Zi-Hijjah, of the
same year.

During this short time, the disposition of Sultan ’Ala-ud-
Din, Mas’iid Shah, received a change towards the Maliks;
and, for the greater part of that [time] that he was wont to
be invisible to the army, malignity had become established
in his mind. The whole of the Maliks, in league together,
wrote secretly and surreptitiously, and tendered their allegi-
ance to Sultan" Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, and besought
him to put his august standards in motion [towards the
capital], for the purpose of assuming the sovereignty. On
Sunday, the 23rd of the month of Muharram‘, 644 H., he
reached the capital accordingly, and ascended the throne
of sovereignty— May he be preserved for many years!

Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam ° represented [to the new Sultan]
“Since the Khutbah and coin of the kingdom are adorned
with the august Nasir name, and, in the past year, the
army of the accursed [Mughals], having fled before the
forces of Islam, are gone towards the upper country, it
may be advisable that the royal forces should march to-
wards the upper [parts]*.”. In accordance with this expe-
dient counsel *, the expedition to the upper parts was deter-
mined upon; and, on Monday, the Ist of the month of
Rajab, 644 H., the sublime standards moved out of the
capital; and Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, in using celerity and
getting over the stages, continued to strive,’ until the banks
of the river Sidharah were reached, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam,

6 This movement 15 not mentioned at all under the reign. See page 668,
and page 678, and note 1, Qur author seems to have confused his state-
ments here.

7 That is, who became Sultan subsequently. He was simply Malik Nasgir-
ud-Din, Mahmiid Shih, at this time.

8 The same day on which ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, was seized and
imprisoned. ।

9 What office Ulugh Khan held, after the accession of the new Sultan, is
not mentioned, but we may assume that he was confirmed in his former office
of Amir-i-Hajib.

1 Compare ELLIOT here.

2 ‘The R. A. S. WS. is defective from this word, to the words ‘‘ sacred

knot,”’ page 820,
3 The Calcutta Printed Text is defective here.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 815

with the Maliks‘ and Amirs of Islam [with theit contin-
gents], separated from the army on an expedition to the
Jiid Hills in order to wreak vengeance on the Ranah of
those Hills, who, in the previous year, had acted as guide
to the Mughal army र.

With that object they pushed onwards, and the Jiid Hills
and parts adjacent to the river Jilam*° [Jhilam] they as-
sailed ; and the army of Islam carried its incursions, and
ravaged [the country], as far as the banks of the river Sind,
and despoiled Jas-Pal, Sihra [or Sehra], and the whole of
his tribes 1 The Musalman force was taken over the river
Jilam [Jhilam], and carried its ravages as far as the banks.
of the river Sind, in such wise, that all women, families, and
dependents of the infidels who were in those parts, took to
flight, and a body [of men] from the army of the infidel
Mughals came ६0 ° the ferries of the Jilam [Jhilam], and
beheld the lines of the Musalman troops serving under
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, and fear fell upon their hearts, at
the number of troops composing his army, the number of
cavalry in defensive armour, and the abundance of arms,
and war material; and they wondered greatly, and great
terror took possession of that gathering. That vigour,
military organization, and overthrowing of enemies, in the
assault of mountain heights, the gorges of mountain passes,
and of ravines, the capturing of strong places and forts’,
and penetrating of forests, which Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam dis-
played, cannot be contained within the area of recital, and
the fame of that holy warfare extended as far as the land
of Turkistan.

In this tract', as there were neither fields nor tillage,
supplies were not to be obtained, and, of necessity, Ulugh

+ Maliks and Amirs are not necessarily “ generals

* This plainly indicates that the Mughals came through the Sind-Sagar
Doabah, and accounts for the flank march of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid
shiah's army

6 Around Nandanah, and the territory of the Khokhar tribe. See under
the reign, page 678.

7 Many copies of the text are defective here.

8 Compare ELLioT also. The Mughals would have scarcely ^ crossed over
the Failam” [Jhilam ?] the same side as the Dibli army was, when they were
४० terrified at Ulugh Khan’s host, unless they wished to become captives

9 What a pity that our author did not deem it necessary to name some
of them ! 1 Beyond the Jhilam.

816 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Khin-i-A’zam was compelled to return again. When he
presented himself in the presence of the Court, victorious,
triumphant, and safe, with the whole of the troops, and the
Amirs and Maliks who were along with him, the sublime
standards moved’ to return again towards the illustrious
capital, Dihli, on Thursday, the 25th of the month of Zi-
Ka’dah, 644 H. On Thursday, the 2nd of the month of
Muharram, 645 H., the capital was reached.

Since, through the firmness of counsel, and the justness
ef determination of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, the army of
Turkistan and Mughal had beheld those exploits and that
military organization, during this year, 645 H., not a single
man, from the parts above’, came towards the territory of
Sind. Therefore, in the month of Sha’ban of this same
year, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam represented for the sublime
consideration, “it is advisable, that, during this year, the
sublime standards should be put in motion for the purpose
of ravaging and carrying on holy war in the extreme parts
of the territory of Hindustan + in order that the independent
[Hindu] tribes, and Raes and Ranahs, who, during the last
few years, have not been punished, may receive a thorough
chastisement, that booty may fall into the hands of the
troops of Islam, and means to repel the infidel Mughals, in
the shape of wealth, may be amassed.”

In accordance with that prudent counsel, the august
standards were put in motion towards Hindiistan, and moved
down the middle of the Do-abah of the Gang and Jin;
and, after much fighting with the infidels, the army gained
possession of the fort of Talsandah*®. Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam,

ॐ The Sultan remained with his camp, and a great portion of his forces, on
the banks of the Siidharah or Chinab during this raid to the Sind or Indus.

ॐ That is from the Sind-Sagar Do-abah, and west of the Indus. It seems
that the Mughals, previous to this, made alinost yearly raids upon the border
tracts of Sind and Multan.

4 In the Antarbed Do-ab, ए. of Dihli, and in Awadh.

° The word Nandanah, contained in the Calcutta Printed Text only, is
totally incorrect. MNandanah is in the Sind-Sagar Do-dbah. The correct
word is given in a foot-note in the Printed Text, but, in ELLIOTT, the former is
copied. See foot-note of page 347 to that work also.

At page 679, under the events of the year 645 H., it is stated to have been
situated within the limits of Kinnauj. See note ! to that page.

The word is plainly written, in the three best copies of the text, and in two
others ४५ and the only variation, in other good copies is ०५८

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 817

with others of the Maliks of Islam, and troops, were de-
spatched to coerce Dalaki of Malaki, and he was a Ranah
in the vicinity of the river Jin, which is between Ka@linjar
and Karah, whom the Raes of the parts around Kalinjar
and 7 21311 ° used not to be able to gain superiority over,
on account of the number of his dependents and followers,
the immensity of his wealth, the difficulty of the routes,
the stability of position, the strength of the narrow, winding,
defiles, the denseness of numerous forests, and strong
mountains, places, which had never, at any time, been
reached by Musalm4n troops.’

When Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam reached the locality where
that Ranah had taken up his position, and the place of
his abode, he displayed so much perseverance in his own
defence, and the defence of his family and children, that,
from the time of early morning until the period of evening
prayer, he remained ; and, when night came, he repeated
the invocation of flight, and removed from that place to
[other] strong positions®*, When the day broke, the
troops of Islam entered that place and dwelling of his, and
[afterwards] pursued him. That accursed one had ascended
the high mountains, and had withdrawn to a place, to enter
the narrow defiles of which was impossible without the
greatest contrivance, and the aid of ropes and ladders’.
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam stimulated the Musalm&n troops to
holy warfare, and, animated by his entreaties, commands,
and gestures, they took the place’. They captured the
whole of the Ranah’s family, kinsmen, and _ children,
together with cattle, and horses, and captives, in great
number ; and such an amount of booty fell into the hands
of the troops of Islam that the conception of the arith-
metician would be helpless in recounting it.

५ The Raes of Kalinjar and Malwah are not referred to. The text has, as
rendered above— syle y 26 I bI Skt,

7 This shows the fallacy of reading ‘‘ Chin” instead of Ujjain, referred to
in note 8, page 517, when the Sultans of Dihli, Aa/f a century subsequent to the
period there mentioned, had not subdued the Hindii rulers of these parts so
near their very capital.

® Compare ELLIOT here, page 366—367, vol. ii.

* Here the hill tracts extending to the left bank of the Son are evidently
referred to.

1 Our author appears not to have known the name of the place in question.

818 THE TABAKAT-I.NASIRL

On the last day’ of the month of Shawwal, 645 H.,
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, with vast booty, rejoined the
Sultan’s camp [at Karah’]; and, after the festival of the
Azha, the sublime standards moved forward to return
to the capital‘. An account of the whole of that expe-
dition and holy warfare is composed [by the author] in
verse, in a separate book, and that book has been named
the NASIRI NAMAH. On the 24th of the month of Mu-
harram, 646 H., the capital was reached.

Subsequently, in the month of Sha’ban, 646 H., the royal
standards moved towards the upper provinces as far as the
extreme confines, and the bank of the river Biah, and from

thence returned again to the capital.

Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, along with other Maliks under his
orders, with numerous forces, was appointed to proceed
towards Rantabhir’, and to ravage the Koh-payah of
Mewat, and the territory of Nahar Diw*, who was greatest
of all the Raes of Hindistan. The whole country, and the

2 The word used is a which does not signify ‘‘beginning,” but the
contrary. ‘

3 There is considerable discrepancy here. Under the events of this year at
page 681, it is said that Karah was reached, by the Sultan, on the 12th of
Zi-Ka’dah—the ’Id-i-Azha is on the 1oth—and that, fhirty days previous to
that date, Ulugh Khan, and other great Maliks associated with him, had been
despatched on this expedition.

+ On the march back from Karyah, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shih, the
Sultan’s brother, who held the fief of Kinnauj, presented himself to the Sultan,
and the fiefs of Sanbhal and Buda’iin were assigned him. The prince, soon
after, for some reason or other, became frightened or disaffected, and fled
to Lahor, abandoning his fiefs. I shall have more to say, respecting this
mysterious matter, in the next Section. The march to the Biah, mentioned a
few lines under, was evidently connected with his flight in some way ; but,
stranye to say, under the reign it is not mentioned, and an expedition ‘‘ against
the infidels of the hills and plains” is stated to have been undertaken in that
month and year, and the despatch of forces towards Rantabhir is afterwards
mentioned. See page 684, and page 793, and note +, See also where Sher
Khan-i-Sunkar is mentioned as having joined Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’tid Shah, at
page 793, and note 7.

$ This stronghold had been taken by I-yal-timish in 623 H., but, after his
death, the Hindiis had closely invested it; and, in Ragiyyat’s reign, the
garrison was withdrawn, and the fort destroyed. See page 642.

6 The Calcutta Printed Text refers its readers to page rte—as if this chief
were one and the same with Chahar, the Ajar, mentioned at page 691, which
see. Thomas [PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLf, page 125] also falls into the same
error. Ulugh Khan did not make war upon Chahir, the Ajar, “vice, but
once. ‘This Nahar Diw is a different person altogether. See pages 824 and

28, farther on.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 879

confines of that territory were ravaged, and a large amount
of booty was acquired, and, at the foot of the fort of
Rantabhir, on Sunday, the 11th’? of the month of Zi-
Hijjah, 646 H., Malik Baha-ud-Din, I-bak, the Khwajah,
attained martyrdom. Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam was engaged
{at this time] in holy warfare on another side of the fortress,
and his dependents were [also] occupied in battle and holy
warfare, and despatched numbers of the infidels to hell.
Immense booty, and invaluable property was acquired,
and the Musalman troops were made rich with plunder,
and returned to the sublime presence.

In this year, the royal mind evinced a desire to enter
into a matrimonial alliance with the family of Ulugh
Khian-i-A’zam’*, who, every year, in leading the forces, and
efforts in the service of the sublime Court, continued to
display praiseworthy proofs, to such degree that no monarch
has ever had a servant who, having attained the dignity of
Khan and Malik, possessed a greater soul or more august
temperament than Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, of honour greater,
of counsel more prudent, in leading armies more intrepid,
in overthrowing foes more victorious, more worthy of being
dignified with the honour of a matrimonial alliance with
His Majesty, the Sultan-ul-A’zam, NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA
UD-DIN, ABO-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMOD SHAH—whose do-
minion and sovereignty may God long continue !—and, by
virtue of that alliance, labours for the glory of the king-
dom, and the destruction of enemies in adjacent parts were
likely to be increased.

Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, with due reverence and _ sub-
mission to command, complied, and repeated the saying:
“The slave and what he possesses is the property of his
master,” and that union became completed by the sacred

7 In a few copies, the 15th, but, under the reign, the 11th of the month is
also mentioned.

8 Mr. Dowson, who translates the account of Ulugh Khan in ELtiot,
renders this passage thus: ‘‘/# the course of this year his majesty was pleased to
recognise the great ability of his general. Se therefore promoted him from the
rank of Malik, &c.,”’ and adds in a foot-note, ^ Many lines of eulogy are here
compressed into this short but adequate statement.” This adeguate and com-
pressed statement, as may be seen, leaves out all about the marriage of the
Sultan to Ulugh Khan’s daughter, in fact, both the following paragraphs
given above. See also page 685 and note 4.

820 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

knot, on Monday, the 20th of the month of Rab? -ul-
Akhir, 647 H., and the verse, “ He hath let loose the two
seas which meet together .... Out of them come forth
pearls and 607121१," was made manifest. May the Most
High God, during the lifetime of the Sultan-i-A’zam, and
high position of Ulugh Khan-i-Mu’azzam ', continue those[?]
Princes, in the Shamsi dominion and sovereignty, life-heirs
of the whole of the monarchs’, for the sake of Muham-
mad and the whole of his house!

After such a propitious event happened, which must
have been the result of the felicitous conjunction of the
stars, the status of Ulugh Khan was raised, from the rank
of Malik and Amir-i-Hajib, to the dignity and eminent
position of Khan, and on Tuesday, the 3rd of the month
of Rajab, 647 H., [a mandate] issued from the sublime
Court, conferring the Deputy-ship of the kingdom and
leader-ship of the forces, with the title and name of Ulugh
Khan ° [the Great Lord], upon that incomparable individual
of august disposition, and, in truth, one might say, “titles
come down from Heaven;” for, from that day forward, the
N§asiri rule acquired additional freshness from the zealous
services, and heroism, of Ulugh Khan.

On the title of Ulugh Khan being conferred upon him,
his brother, who was Amir-i-Akhur—that beneficent and
humane Malik, of pure morals and excellent disposition—
Saif-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din, Kashli Khan-i-, I-bak-us-Sultani
—on whom be peace!—became Amir-i-Hajib, and Malik
Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez-Khan, at that time, became
Deputy Amir-i-Hajib, and the Malik-ul-Hujjab * [Head of
the Chamberlains], ’Ala-ud-Din, Ayaz, the Zinjani, became
the Deputy Wakil-i-Dar [Representative in Dar-bar], who

9 Kur’AN: Chap. Lv. verses 19-22. Sale’s translation is somewhat
different :—‘‘ He hath let loose the two seas that they meet each another... .
From them are taken forth unions and lesser pearls.”

1 He makes a distinction here, and Ulugh Khan,,’who, upon other
occasions, gets the title of A’gam, receives the /esser title.

Such is the original, but it would seem more natural that during the lifetime
and eminence of Ulugh Khan an heir might be born to the Sultan, and
the Shamsi line be perpetuated.

$ Up to this date his correct title was Malik Ghiyag-ud-Din, Balban
only. This our author means, although he styles him by the title he held
when this work was written.

+ Huyab is the plural of Hajib, and, therefore, there must have been

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 821

is my 501 ° and the light of my eyes, and adorned with all
laudable qualifications, of whom no stronger encomium 15
needed than that of his loyalty to Ulugh Khan's service,
and may such augment! The assignment of these ap-
pointments took place on Friday, the 6th of the month
of Rajab, 647 H., and the Deputy Amir-i-Akhur, Ikh-
tiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, the Long-haired, became Amir-i-
Akhur.

Subsequently, on Monday, the goth of the month of
Sha’ban, 647 H., he [Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam] moved from
the capital [with the troops] for the purpose of [under-
- taking] an expedition against the infidels, and, at the ford
of the river Jiin, the camp was pitched, and they engaged
in holy warfare and hostilities against the infidels, the
independent [Hindi] tribes* around, when’ intelligence
reached this author, from Khurasan, from his sister, and
her lonesomeness affected his heart much. He proceeded
to the camp and waited upon Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, and
laid the matter before him, who gave him such support
and showed so much kindness as cannot be recounted, and
conferred a dress of honour upon this his devoted servant,
Minhaj-i-Saraj, presented him with a bay horse saddled and
bridled, a great roll of gold brocade cloth, and the grant of
a village producing about thirty thousand 2445 ; and, up
to this present date, that grant comes to this sincere votary
every year. May Almighty God make this the cause of
the augmentation of Ulugh Khan’s dignity and power,
and make him victorious and triumphant over the enemies

some difference between the Amir-i-Hajib—Lord Chamberlain—and the
Malik-ul-Hujjab—Head or Chief of the Chamberlains, or Janitors. Such an
officer has never before been mentioned in this work.

५ He may have been our author’s son-in-law, adopted son, or a favourite
disciple so styled. He would not be styled the Zinjani—native of Zinjan—
had he been his son in reality. Jurjani would have been given him here if
he were. In one of the best copies of the text he is styled I-bak.

५ Under the reign, our author says ‘‘ Hindis” merely. The troops moved
from Dihli on the 22nd of Shawwal, the Jiin was crossed, and the camp
pitched on the (ध bank, on Sunday, the 4th of Sha’ban. The infidels must
have been very close at hand for the troops to be able to undertake operations
against them immediately they crossed the Jiin.

7 All from this place, to the end of this and the two following paragraphs,
is left out entirely in ELLIoT [vol. ii. page 368] as ‘‘ matters personal of the
author,” and page 350 is referred to, where the forty captives are turned into
“a hundred beasts of burden,” &c., noticed at page 686, note 7,

822 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

of the faith! Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam represented the situa-
tion of this servant of the state, and his anxieties, to His
Majesty; and, on Sunday, the 2nd of the month of
Zi-Ka’dah, 647 H.,a command was issued from the sublime
Court for forty chains of captives °, and a hundred ass-loads
of presents to be transmitted to the sister of the author
into Khurasdn—May the. Most High God continue the
N§asiri dynasty and dominion until the conclusion of time’s
revolution, for bestowing so many benefits !

On Monday, the 29th of the month of Zi-Ka’dah, of this
same year, the author proceeded on a journey from the
capital to Multan ° for the purpose of despatching the gifts
to Khurasan. On the road, on reaching every town, city,
or fort, held by the dependents and servants of Ulugh
Khian-i-A’zam, the servants of that household showed the
author so much reverence and honour that the eye of
sense would be fatigued in recording it—may God accept
them all for it! On Wednesday, the 6th' of the month of
Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 648 H., Multan was reached, and the
author proceeded as far as the bank of the river Jilam
[Jhilam].2 After having despatched those captives and
loads to Khu for a period of two months the author

8 The Printed Text here, as well as in the former instance, has ‘‘ forty chains
of captives,” but the editors seem astonished at it, from the note of interro-
gation added ; and, in a foot-note, they put a piece upon it, by making them
‘‘ forty chain of elephants loaded with captives [as contained in one copy of the
text] and several ass-loads” !

There are certain technical and idiomatic words applied to men and animals,
and other things, in use in the Zast, which the mere tyro in Oriental languages
is expected to be acquainted with, and such a term our author has applied to
these captives, at page 686, where the term nafar—person—which is applied
only to human beings, is used ; 2anjtr——chain—is applied to elephants generally,
but, here, is not quite incorrect, as the captives were, no doubt, secured by
chains, and raés—head—to oxen and horses, &c., just as we apply covey to
partridges, shoa/ to fish, swarm to bees, Litter to puppies and pigs, and so on
but [ never heard of १२, (= .#j—zajir fil-t-bardak—before, nor do I think
any one ever did

9 Our author’s object in going to Multan for this purpose arose evidently
from the fact that Lahor and the upper parts of the Panjab were in the hands
of the Mughals and Khokhars, and he had to send the captives by one of the
other, and more southern routes into Khurasan.

1 At page 688 also, our author says he reached Multan on the 6th, the sane
day on which Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kaghli Khan, reached it; but, at
page 782, he says that Malik reached Multan on the 2nd of Rabi’-ul-Awwal,
and that he arrived himself two days subsequently.

3 According to the theory advanced in the article on the ‘‘ Lost River”

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 823

happened to stay in the army of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din,
Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, at the foot of the walls of the
fortress of Multan, for the air was still exceeding hot.
When the rainy season set in, and the rains of compassion
लि], on the 26th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the
author set out on his return from Multan, and, on the 22nd
of the month of Jaméadi-ul-Akhir, reached the capital
again.

At this period the Kazi-ul-Kuzat (Kazi of Kazis],
Jalal-ud-Din, the Kasani—on whom be peace and pardon !
—was Kazi of the realm of Hindiistan ; and, when the
term of the days of that unique one of his age came to
conclusion, great‘ countenance and favour was shown by
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam towards this devoted suppliant, and
his invaluable support was the means of this servant of his
power being entrusted anew with the office of the K4zi-ship
of the kingdom, and he [Ulugh Khan] submitted it for the
sublime consideration. On Sunday, the roth of the month
of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 649 H.‘, for the second time, the
Kazi-ship of the realm was consigned to the author—May
Almighty God, continual and enduring preserve the Sultan
of Sultans, Nasir-ud-Duny4 wa ud-Din, Abi-l-Muzaffar-i-
Mahmid Shah, upon the throne of sovereignty, and Ulugh
Khin-i-A’zam, in the royal audience hall of power‘!

previously referred to respecting the Sutlaj, as no river ts here mentioned by
our author between Dihli and the Jhilam, all the others must have left their
beds or become dried up.

3 It would appear, from the above remark, that a great change has taken
place since this period, for the effects of the monsoon do not now extend to
Multan ; and, while farther east they are enjoymg the coolness of the rainy
season, at Multan and parts adjacent, and in Sind, the heat is at its height.
I have known rain fall for a few hours at a time now and then in August, and
some good showers, towards the close of the monsoon, in September, but the
heat is not much lessened, except for a short time after rain, until about the
close of the latter month.

The date on which our author left Multan to return to Dihli was about the
end of June, the hottest part of the hot season in these days, a fearful time to
have to cross the Indian desert. The fact of our author setting out from
Multan, and proceeding to Dihlf by way of Abihar [page 687], is a pretty
conclusive proof that, at the period in question, the now Lost River must have
fertilized those parts.

+ See under Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah’s reign, sixth year, for other
events of this period.

* Here end the ^ matters personal of the author ” referred to in the previous
note 7, page 821.

824 THE TABAKAT-I.NASIRL

On Tuesday, the 25th of the month of Sha’ban, 649 H.,
the sublime standards* moved towards the territory of
Malwah and Ka@linjar’. When Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, with
the troops of Islam, arrived in those parts, he overthrew
Chahar, Ajari*®, who was a great Ranah, with a numerous
following, and a multitude of dependents and people, and
who possessed ample resources of horses and arms, and
rooted him out from hiscountry. This Ranah of [?] Ajari,
who was named Chahar, was a great man, impetuous, and
experienced ; and has been previously mentioned. In the
reign of the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din—
on whom be peace !— [namely] in the year 632 H., the troops
of Islam from Bhianah, Sultan-kot, Kinnauj, Mahir, Maha-
wan, and Gwaliyiir, were despatched for the purpose of
ravaging the territory of Kalinjar and Jami १, the leader of
which forces was Malik Nusrat-ud-Din,Ta-yas’i, the Mu’izzi,
who for manhood, competency, judgment, vigour, military
talents, and expertness, has been distinguished above all his
compeers, the Maliks of that time. For a period of fifty days’,
they proceeded on that expedition, from Gwéiliyir, and
vast booty was acquired, to such degree that, for this short

¢ It appears that, from the time Ulugh Khan was raised to the dignity of
Deputy or Lieutenant of the realm, Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah, very
seldom accompanied his armies as before, but left all to Ulugh Khjin’s
energy.

7 Under the reign, page 690, it is stated that the troops moved towards
Gwiiliyir, Chandiri, Nurwul, and Malwah.

8 Here also, in all the copies of the text collated, the words are se! ale
and .¢'e! »le—which, from the mode in which they are written, mean,
that Chahar was his name, and Ajari [Acharya १] the name of his caste or title,
but, three lines under, he is styled (५ । +43',\—which, if the Aamzah [+] is correct,
can only be read, from the original, as above, thus tending to show that our
author considered the word .s,\»! —47dri—to be the name of his territory, for,
immediately after, he says Ais name was Chahar. In the account of Malik
Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yas’i, page 733, the Rae of Kalinjar is mentioned as well as
Ranah Chahar, and there the latter is called Ranah of Ajar. See also page
691. The Mir at-i-Jabin-Numa has what may be read either Mahar, Bahar,
or Nahar Diw, but it must refer to the Rae of Rantabhir mentioned at page
818, which see.

9 This name does not occur in two copies of the text, and there is great
probability that the word ys-—Jamii—is an error for »°o—Damow or Dami,
a place giving name to a parganah, about 46 miles E. of Saugor [Sagar],
in Lat. 22” 50’, Long. 79° 30’. The first word might easily be written by
mistake, for the latter, and there would be no error in the direction.

1 There is not a word in the text about marching ‘‘on //ty days from
Gwalior,” as in ELLIOT.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 825

period, the Sultan’s share of a fifth amounted to nearly
twenty-two /aés*, In short, at the time of returning from
Kalinjar, the passage of the army of Islam lay [through
the territory of] this Ranah of Ajari, and that Ranah had
seized the route of the Musalman forces in the narrow
ravines leading from the [banks of the] river Garanah [or
Karanah].

The author of this book heard from the mouth of Malik
Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa’1, himself, [who said] :—“ Never,
in Hindiistan, did a foe see my back, [but] that Hindiiak
(Hindi fellow] of Ajari made an attack upon me in such
` wise that you might say it was a wolf falling upon a flock
of sheep. It was necessary to turn aside before him, until
I emerged from another direction, attacked, and routed
him*.” This anecdote has been related in order that
readers [of these pages] may understand to what degree
was the genius and success of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, that,
with one onslaught, he overthrew and routed such an
enemy, and wrested out of his possession the fort of
Nurwul‘, which is a famous stronghold, and, on that
expedition and inroad, he displayed such sagacity and
promptitude, and performed such exploits [against the
infidels], as will remain a record on the face of time.

On Monday, the 23rd of the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal,
650 H., the sublime standards returned to Dihli again, and,
for a period of six months, the troops continued at the
capital of the empire, the city of Dihli, until Monday, the
12th ° of the month of Shawwal, when the sublime standards
moved towards the upper provinces® and the river Biah ;
and, at this period, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli
Khan, was feudatory of Buda’iin, and Malik Kutlugh Khan
feudatory of Bhianah, and both Maliks were requested by

2 At page 733, the sum is 25 /aks.

3 He was coming up from the river, not going down towards it from the
statement above. This does not agree with the details given in the account of
Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yas’i, at page 773, in fact, rather tends to con-
tradict therm Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 369.

+ See page 690. Nurwul and Nurwur are one and the same thing.

$ At page 692, seven months, until the 22nd of Shawwal. One of the
oldest copies has Sha’ban.

6 Towards Lohor, with the intention of marching to Uchchah and Multan,
but the Biah was the farthest point reached. See pages 692, and 767, and
Page 783, and note 7.

3G

826 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

His Majesty [to attend him]. Both these Maliks, with
the whole of the other Maliks, were present in attendance
during this expedition, at the audience tent of majesty.

When the sublime standards reached the districts on the
river Biah, "Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan secretly -plotted with
the Maliks, and began to excite them all greatly to envy
of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam’s power, and malicious eyes were
beginning to regard his brilliant position with repugnance,
and they conspired whether, in some hunting-ground, or
the defiles of some passes, or 11 crossing some river, they
might not injure or afflict the sacred person and august
body of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam: “ They endeavour to extin-
guish the light of God with [the breath of} their mouths,
but God rejects aught but the perfection of His light ’,”
continued to shield the Ulugh Khani good fortune with
His own protection, and gave no opportunity to his
enemies to injure his gentle nature and noble person.
Since that which was conceived in the hearts of that
faction was not easily carried out, they concerted together,
and, assembling before the entrance of the royal tent,
represented for the regal consideration, that it was advisable
that a mandate should be conveyed to Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam that he should proceed towards his own fief*, and
to this effect® they caused a mandate to be conveyed to
him ; and, from the halting-place of Hasirah’, on Tuesday,
the last day’ of the month of Muharram, 651 H., Ulugh
Khan-i-A’zam, with his retinue and family and dependents,
departed towards Hansi’.

7 Kur’An, chap. ix. verse 32.

® Not “estates,” but a province.

9 Compare ELLIOT here. There is nothing in the text about ‘‘ indirectly ”
or about being ‘‘ brought about in a left-handed way.” The Printed Text has
s,~ee—the left wing of an army - instead of the name of a halting place.

1 The name of this place is extremely doubtful, and there is no knowing
exactly where to look for it, as we do not know from what part they were
returning. The following are the different ways in which it is written, as near
as types will permit :—+—-»—+,—~A—s9;3—s, and sd One copy—a very
modern one, and the Calcutta Printed Text have spe which means the left
wing of an army, left side, &c., which in ELLIOT, as said above, has been
turned into ^^ brought about in a left-handed way ;” but the words ‘halting
place ” along with it show that it is intended for the name of a place of some
sort. See also under the reign, page 693, and note 7.

2 Under the reign |,¢—/rst of the month: here ,\-—dast day.
3 The name of this place is derived from the tribé named Hans.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 827

When the sublime standards returned again to the
capital *, and the prickings of the thorn of envy towards
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam were afflicting the darkness-filled
heart of ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, he, consequently, repre-
sented for the royal consideration: “It may be advisable
that a command should be issued to Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam
to proceed to Nag-awr, and that the Hansi territory should
be given in charge toone of the Princes of the Universe”
—-May God long preserve their lives! In conformity with
that counsel the sublime standards moved in the direction
of Hansi in order that Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam should depart
to Nag-awr’; and this undertaking was entered upon in
the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 651 H.

On reaching प्रहरणं ^ "Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan became
Wakil-i-Dar [Representative in Dar-bar], and he took
into his own hands the direction of affairs within the hall
of the pavilion of majesty’, and, according to the prompt-
ings of that envy and malevolence, the office of Kazi of
the kingdom was taken from this servant of the state,
Minhaj-i-Saraj, in the month of Rajab of the before-men-
tioned year, and was committed to Kazi Shams-ud-Din,
the Bhara’iji; and, on the 17th [27th ?] of the month of
Shawwal, [the Sultan and his forces] returned to the
capital. Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan,—on
whom be peace !—who was the brother of Ulugh Khian-i-
A’zam, the Amir-i-Hajib *, they sent to the fief of Karah,
and the office of Deputy Amir-i-Hajib was consigned to
Malik ’Izz-ud-Din-i-Balban’, the son-in-law of Kutlugh
Khan. Every one holding an office or employment which

4 In the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal.

$ This, in other words, was to oust him from the fief of Hansf and confine
him to that of Nag-awr. See note 8, below.

6 Differently stated under the reign, page 694, which see. There it is stated
that he became Wakil-i-Dar, after returning to the capital. |

7 The words «> Jol. are rendered, in ELLIOT, page 370, ‘‘the royal
orders,” but, at page 369, the same words are rendered ‘‘ the royal aéode.”

® At page 695 our author says Prince Rukn-ud-Din [Firiz Shah] was
nominated to the office of Amir-i-Hajib and the fief of Hansi. See also
note 8 to that page, and page 798.

9 This does not refer to Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, but to
the person who, subsequently, in 657 H., became ruler of Lakhanawati—
’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiiz-Baki. See page 770, and note * at page 775,
para. 4.

3 2

828 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

appertained to. Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam’s patronage was
removed and transferred ; and the established affairs of a
quiet kingdom were deranged by the pernicious counsel of
’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan.

During the period that Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam had gone
to Nag-awr, he led the troops of Islam’ towards the
territory of Rantabhir, Bhundi’, and Chitrir. The Rae
of Rantabhir, Nahar Diw’, who is the greatest of the Raes,
and the most noble and illustrious of the Maliks of Hind,
assembled an army in order that perchance he might be
able to inflict a disaster upon Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam. Since
the Most High and Holy God had willed that the renown
of His Highness, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, for victory, triumph,
and success, should endure upon the records of time, the
whole of that army of Rae Nahar Diw, notwithstanding it
was very numerous, well provided with arms, and elephants,
with choice horses, and famous ९२३४५२६७ ५ he put to the
rout, and the heroic men sent great numbers of the enemy
to hell. Vast booty was captured, and horses and captives’
beyond computation were taken. Safe and rich, under
the protection of the Creator, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam
returned again to the province of Nag-awr, and that place,
through his felicitous presence, became a large city.

When the new year of 652 H.° came round, a change took

1 His own contingent of troops—the forces of his fief.

2 Also spelt Bhindi. The “official” Printed Text, by a great blunder,
makes Hindi of this well-known place, and, in ELLiot, of course, it is
the same.

3 This was the second time Ulugh Khan had encountered him In some
copies here, as well as in a previous place, we have »l—Bahir or Bahar,
but in others ,»4—Nahar, and in some yo ,st—Nahir Diw. Nahar is a
Rajput name.

According to Tod, the state and city of Boondce, as he calls it, was only
founded in the year [S. ?] 1342—A.D. 1286, and yet this, our author’s work,
was finished 11 A.D. 1259!

4 Champions, heroes, in the vernacular.

5 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 371. The same word for captive ,०+-
bardak—is used here, as at page 350 of that work, and yet it is there declared
that ‘‘It can hardly bear this meaning,” and so it is turned into ‘* deast of
burden,” from the verb durdan, to carry!! See aiso at the end of this
account of Ulugh Khan.

$ See under the reign, ninth year, pages 696-7, for an account of the expe-
dition into the Do-dbah and Kathehr. The events recorded in the reign and
- thisaccount of Ulugh Khan together form a chronicle of the reign, but one

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 829

place in the condition of the number of oppressed, who, by
the hand of tyranny, and through removal from office,
occasioned by the absence of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, had
remained’ in a place of seclusion like unto fish without
water and the sick without sleep, from night to day, and,
day to night, continued to beseech the Holy Creator, that
the morn of the Ulugh Khini prosperity might raise its
face from the east of power, and the darkness of the
Rayhani tyranny might be changed to the sun-light of the
(ण्डा Khani administration®. The Most High God was
graciously pleased to grant the prayers of the afflicted,
and the appeals of the distressed, and was pleased to cause
the victorious standards of Ulugh Kh4n-i-A’zam to be
given to the wind from the preserved city of Nag-awr,
towards, and with the design of proceeding to, the capital.

The reason was this, that the Maliks and servants of the
Sultan’s Court were all Turks of pure lineage, and Tajziks
of noble birth, and ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, [who] was
castrated and mutilated, and of the tribes of Hind १, was
ruling over the heads of lords of high descent, and the
whole of them were loathing that state, and were unable
any longer to suffer that degradation’. The case of this
frail individual was on this wise, that, for a period of six
months, or even longer, it was out of his power to leave
his dwelling? and go to the Friday’s prayers, for fear of the
is incomplete without the other, as often the events mentioned in one are left
out in the other, or barely touched upon.

7 According to the version in ELLIorT, vol. ii. page 371, which see, it was
only ९८८४ the opening of the year,” that they ‘‘retired to their closets,” and
offered up their prayers ‘‘ dike fish out of water (sic), and sick men without
slumber” !!—the Calcutta Printed Text, which is quite correct here has—
4935 ४.1. raed +9 ४

9 Our author, being one of those deprived of office, writes feelingly on this
subject. The I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and R. A. 3. A/S. are both defective
here, in the same place, 8 the extent of two or three pages.

9 In fact, a Hindiistant Musalman, one of a Hindii family previously con-
verted to the Muhammadan faith, or, possibly, a new convert.

Rayban is a common proper name of men among the Muhammadans of
Egypt, and now commonly given to slaves, according to Lane, but the term
Rayhani means a Seller of Flowers, and, probably, this upstart’s father followed
such an occupation.

1 This alone indicates what a Sultan it was—a mere puppet in the hands of
the strongest party.

3 In ELLiot, instead of our author being obliged to stay at home for six
months, as the printed text has, like other copies, all those, who ‘retired to

830 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

violence of a gang of villains who were patronized by
’"Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan : so the condition of others, every
one of whom consisted of Turks and conquering, ruling,
and foe-breaking, Maliks, may well be conceived. How
could they continue under this disgrace?

In short, the Maliks of Hindistan*, namely, from the
territory of Karah and Manik-piir, and Awadh and the
district of Tirhut, as far as Buda’iin, and from the side of
Tabarhindah as far as Sunam, Kuhram, and Samanah, and
the whole of the Siwalikh [country], prayed Ulugh Khan-
i-A’zam to return to the capital‘. Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, brought forth a body of troops
from Tabarhindah, and Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat Khan-i-I-
bak, the Khita-i, issued from Sunam and Mansir-pir, and
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam assembled forces from Nag-awr and
the Siwalikh, and Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’tid Shah *, son
of Sultan Shams-ud-Din [I-yal-timish], from the side of
Lohor joined them, and they turned their faces towards the
environs of the capital.

’"Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan represented to the Sultan that
the sublime standards should move out for the purpose of
repelling his own servants, and they [the Sultan and his
adviser] marched the forces from Dihli towards Sunam, for
that purpose®’. Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, with the other
Maliks, was in the neighbourhood of Tabarhindah; and
the author set out from the capital for the purpose of join-
ing the royal camp, because it was impossible for him to
remain in the city [of Dihli] without the presence of the
sublime Court’. On Monday, the 26th of the month of
their closets to pray like fish out of water,” &c., are a// made to suffer ‘‘ from
the hands of the bullies ” of ’Imad-ud-Din, ‘‘so that for six months ¢hey could
not leave their houses’”’!

8 This explains what he means by Hindiistan, and which I have previously
alluded to. e

+ See under the reign, page 699. There it is said that these Maliks gathered
about Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’tid Shah, the Sultan’s brother, not about Ulugh
Khan, but that the latter, with others, joined the prince, who is there made
the ringleader in this outbreak.

$ See pages 683 and 699, and note +, page 818. More on this subject will
be found in the last Section. Lahor, at this time, was not under the sway of
the ruler of Dihli, apparently, and Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, is said to have
gone to the Mughals.

6 Compare ELLIorT here also.

7 In ELLIOT, page 372, this is rendered: ‘‘ The author of this book started

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 831

Ramazan, 652 H., the author reached the royal camp, and,
on Lailat-ul-Kadr*® [the night of Power], in the public
apartment of the august Sultan’s [pavilion], he offered up
prayer. |

On the second. day [after the author's arrival], on
Wednesday, the 28th of the before-named month, whilst on
the march, both armies drew near towards each other, and
the advance guards came in contact, and immense disorder
arose among the Sultan’s forces. The prayers appropriate
to the 'Id-i-Fitr [the festival of Fast-breaking—1st of the
month Shawwal] were performed at Sunam. On Saturday,
the 8th of the month of Shawwédl, the sublime standards
made a retrograde movement towards Ha4nsi, and Malik
Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah [the Sultan’s brother], and
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, with the other illustrious Maliks,
marched towards Kaithal ’.

A number of Maliks and Amirs on both sides [now]
spoke about a mutual accommodation of affairs, and the
Sipah-Salar [leader of troops] Karah-Jamak', one of the
personal slaves of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, who was noted for
manliness, arrived from his chief’s camp, and the Amir of
the black standard, Husam-ud-Din, Kutlugh Shah’, that
Amir of angelic attributes, of great sincerity, and excellent
disposition, who was qualified above the other Amirs of

from the cafital for the royal camp, which was stationed [sic] in the city near
the voyal residence”! The Sultan and his party were, at this time, near
Sunam.

8 The 27th of the month of Ramazan—the fast month. This night is
greatly revered, because on it the Kur’an, according to the Musalman belief,
began to descend from heaven. On this night all orthodox Mubammadans
continue in fervent prayer, imagining that every petition then offered up to the
Almighty will be favourably received. The occasion must have been pressing
to cause active operations to be undertaken during the fas¢ month.

® See under the reign, page 699. There these events are differently
related. |

1 He was Ulugh Khian’s right-hand man, his Chief of the Staff so to say.
Whether he was so styled as well as ‘* General” in Ulugh Khin’s Army
List I cannot pretend to say.

In one of the oldest copies the name is written हट ४ Karah-Kamaj.
Glee (03117 signifies a six-horned or six-spiked mace. The Calcutta
Printed Text, in a foot-note, has 5‘ 5,5 but it does not occur in any copy of
the text collated.

2 He is not mentioned either in the List of the Shamsi Maliks, nor in that
of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah.

832 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

Islam by his age’, was nominated, on this side [the Court’s],
to treat, and [on the other side] the Sipah-Salar, Karah-
Jamak, while Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain ^ son of ’A1j, the
Ghiri—on whom be peace !—made use of every effort and
endeavour that was possible to bring .the matter to an
accommodation. The representation of the whole of the
Maliks to His Majesty was this: “ We all bow our heads
in submission to the mandates of the Court, the Asylum of
the Universe, save that we are not safe from the malice,
deceit, and iniquitous conduct of ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan.
If he should be removed from before the sublime throne of
sovereignty, and sent away to some part, we all will
present ourselves and return to allegiance, and lay the
head of servitude on the line of obedience to the sublime
mandates *.”

When the sublime standards moved from within sight of
Hansi towards Jind [Jhind], on Monday, the 22nd of the
month of Shawwal, 652 प्र, 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan was
removed from the office of Wakil-i-Dar [Representative in
Dar-bar]; and praise be unto God for this and all other
blessings! The government of the province of Buda’in‘°
was committed to him’, and ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban [-1- भ ए2-
Baki], the Deputy Amir-i-Hajib, proceeded to the camp of
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, and, on Tuesday, the 3rd of the
month of Zi-Ka’dah, Malik Bat Khin-i-I-bak, the Khita-i
—on whom be the Almighty’s mercy !—reached the [royal]
camp for the purpose of concluding the reconciliation.
Here is a strange occurrence which happened, of the matter

3 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 372.

+ In some copies here, as in other places, Hasan. He seems to have acted
peacemaker between the two factions.

$ The domineering proceedings over these great chiefs of this eunuch, who
was a Hindi by birth or descent, have been styled, by a modern writer, an
effort to shake off the Turk tyranny and give power to Hindistanis!

6 This was the greatest fief of the kingdom in Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-
timish’s reign, and was so, probably, still. There is not a word about “ pri-
vileges attaching to the government”’ in any copy of the text, printed or
atherwise.

7 A solitary copy of the text, one of the St. Petersburg A/SS., after this
word, has ‘‘ and it was three years and six days, and may Almighty God pre-
serve our sovereign,” &c., as though it was meant thereby that the eunuch had
held power for that time, but the period was much less—from Muharram
651 प्र. to Zj-Ka’dah 652, just one year and cleven months.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 833

of which the author was cognizant, and it is this. ’Imad-
ud-Din-i-Rayhan conspired with a number of Turks‘, in
whose hearts somewhat of the leaven of opposition towards
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam was implanted, that, when Malik Bat
Khin-i-I-bak, the Khita-i, should reach the entrance of the
royal tent, they should cut him down in the vestibule of
the tent, so that, when intimation of it should reach the
camp of Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, they [thé confederate
Maliks] should bring ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiz-Baki °, the
Deputy Amir-i-Hajib, under the sword also, and this
accommodation should not come about, so that ’Imad-ud-
Din-i-Rayhan might continue in safety, and Ulugh Khan’s
return to the Court be impossible.

Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain’, son of ’Ali, Ghiri, on
becoming aware of this intention, despatched the Ulugh-i-
Khas Hajib* [the Chief Royal Chamberlain], the Sharf-ul-
Mulk, Rashid-ud-Din, ’Ali, Hanafi, to Malik Bat Khan-i-
I-bak, the Khita-i [saying] :—“It is advisable that you
remain quiet in your own quarters to-morrow morning, and
do not go to the entrance of the royal tent. As Malik Bat
Khin-i-I-bak, in accordance with this advice, delayed pro-
ceeding to the entrance of the royal tent’, the scheme of
?Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan with those hostile Turks‘ did not
succeed, and the grandees gained a knowledge of it. "Imad-
ud-Din-i-Rayhan, in obedience to the sublime mandate,
was sent away from the royal camp towards Buda’iin ; and,
on Tuesday, the 17th of the month of Zi-Ka’dah, the
Sultan of Sultans, and the Maliks of the sublime Court,

& There is not a word about ‘‘ Turks of low degree” in the text.

9 The same person who is referred to in para. 4 of note to page 775 and at
page 827, who afterwards became feudatory of Lakhanawati. He was Kut-
lugh Khian’s—the Sultin’s step-father’s—son-in-law. Kutlugh Khan was
himself of the Rayhant party.

$ In some, Hasan, as before.

2 Under the reign our author mentions the Amir-i-Hajib, and the Malik-ul-
Hujjab, and, here, the Ulugh-i-Khas Hajib. This last is an official never
before mentioned, and seems to refer to the chief chamberlain of the Sultin’s
own household, as distinct from the other Hajibs. The literal translation of
the words would be—Great Personal or Private Chamberlain.

® The entrance or vestibule of the tent, where those waiting an audience
would assemble. The word for tent is in the singular, but a suite of tents is
meant.

+ Among the hostile Turks the Sultan’s step-father, Kutlugh Khan, was, no
doubt, included, and this is apparent from what afterwards happens.

834 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRL

commanded this servant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saraj, for `
the purpose of effecting a reconciliation between both
parties*, so that he proceeded [to the other camp]and gave
them pledges and guarantees. The next day, Wednesday,
the 18th, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, with the other Maliks,
returned and presented themselves at the sublime Court,
and obtained permission to kiss the sovereign’s hand.
Praise be to God for this and other blessings !

The sublime standards were now brought back, and
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, in attendance at the king’s august
stirrup, on Wednesday, the gth of the month of Zi-Hijjah,
652 H., again returned to the capital city of Dihli. During
the period of Ulugh Khan’s absence from the capital, the
rain of mercy had not rained upon the land, but by the
wisdom of the Divine favour, at the blessed footstep of
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, the gate of the Divine mercy opened,
and rain, which is the source of life to herbs and vegetation,
mankind and animals, fell upon the ground ; and all people
accounted his auspicious arrival an omen of good unto
mortals. On the arrival of his august cavalcade, all be-
came glad and rejoiced, and gave thanks unto Almighty
God for that immense boon ^.

When the new year 653 H. came round, on account of
some occurrence which manifested itself in the womens’
apartments of the royal household, with the secret of which
not a soul had any acquaintance’, on Wednesday, the 7th*
of the month of Muharram of the same year, Kutlugh
Khan was directed to assume the government of Awadh,
and he set out in that direction. wit that time the govern-

-~-१<* 9

ment of 2812121] * was entrusted to ‘Imad-ud-Din-i-
Rayhan.

$ Compare ELLIOT.

® See ELLIOT also here.

7 The cause is stated under the reign. The Sultan’s mother seems to have
contracted a second marriage with Kutlugh Khan—respecting whose ante-
cedents not a word of particulars is given, nor is his name contained in the
List of Maliks—without the knowledge or permission of her son. She had
been with the latter in that part when, as a boy of thirteen, he held the fief of
Bhara’ij, and this may have been the reason why it was assigned to her and
her new husband. See page 676.

8 At page 701, Tuesday, the 6th of Muharram.

9 Just before he is said to have been sent to take charge of Buda’iin. He
may have been subsequently removed to Bhara’fj, but this is not mentioned.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 835

When the Ulugh Khant good fortune emitted a blaze of
brightness, the garden of hope assumed freshness, and the
key of divine favour opened the closed gates of the dwellers
in retirement. One of that number was this servant of the
sovereign dynasty, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jirjini, who, by the
power of enemies’ accusations, and the oppressive tyranny
of eunuchs, had kept within the cell of dismissal and
misfortune, and in a retired corner from adversity and
malevolence’. Through the patronage and favour of
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, who submitted it for the sublime
confirmation, on Sunday, the 7th of the month of Rabr’-ul-
Awwal, 653 प. >, for the third time, the Kazi-ship of the
kingdom and the bench of jurisdiction [as chief Kazi] was
conferred upon this loyal supplicant, the enunciator of
prayer and thanksgiving ; and “ Verily, He who hath pre-
scribed to thee the Kur’an will bring thee back to a place of
return *” was manifested towards this frail one. May the
most High God, of His favour, unto the uttermost revolu-
tions of the heavens, in felicity and supremacy, preserve
and perpetuate the Nasiri sovereignty and Ulugh Khani
authority, for the sake of Muhammad and his whole race!

After Kutlugh Khan proceeded towards Awadh, a con-
siderable period elapsed, [when] the eventualities of destiny
became the cause of disaffection displaying itself, and, on
several occasions, mandates, which were issued on that
subject, were treated with indifference‘. *Imad-ud-Din-i-
Rayhan still continued to use great efforts to enkindle the

A little farther on it is said that Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar, had been appointed to
the charge of Bhara'fj. See also under the reign.

1 ^° acorner retired from clamour and the cruel joy of others.” See
page 829, and note 3.

2 A month after this, on the 23rd of Rabif?-ul-Akhir, 653 H., that illustrious
Malik, Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ’Ali, the Ghirf, was put to death in a
mysterious manner, and his fief made over to Ulugh Khan’s brother. See
page 702, and note >.

> Kur’An, chap. xxviii. verse 85. Sale’s translation of this verse is ^. Verily
He, who hath given thee the Koran for a rule of fasth and practice, will cer-
tainly bring thee back home 4 Mecca,” but others translate the Jast part of the
verse as ‘‘a place of return,” or ^^ some retreat,” that is, a future state. The
verse some commentators say was revealed to Muhammad to comfort him in
his flight from Makkah.

+ This seems to refer to Kutlugh Khan’s plotting with Imad-ud-Din-i-
Rayban, and not giving up Bhara’ij to Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar, referred to
farther on.

836 । THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

fires of sedition in order that, perhaps, he might, by fraud
and deception, with the mud-mortar of his own vicious
artifice, overspread the sun of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam’s good
fortune, and veil the moon of that great chief’s glory with
the cloak of his own knavery, but the favour of the Eternal
without beginning, and the all-sufficiency of the Eternal
without end, used to be the averter of that depravity °.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Mah-Peshani ° [of the moon-
like brow]—-God preserve him!—who had been detained
and imprisoned by Malik Kutlugh Khan, and to whom the
government of Bhara’ij had been entrusted by the Court,
and on which account he had fallen into captivity, by his
own manly stratagem, freed himself from Awadh >, and the
hands of wicked wretches, crossed the river Sar’ii ° in a boat,
and, with a small force, advanced towards Bhara’ij. The
decree of the Creator was on such wise that the prosperity
of the Turks rose victorious, and the influence of the
Hindiis® sank into the dust of defeat. ’Imad-ud-Din-i-
Rayhan fled discomfited before him, and was taken prisoner,
and the sun of his existence set in death.

By the death of ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, the affairs of
Malik Kutlugh Khan declined, and he [’Imad-ud-Din-i-
Rayhan] met his doom at Bhara’ij, in the month of Rajab,
653 H.’ Since those seditions still continued in Hindistan,
and some of the Amirs withdrew their heads ftom the yoke
of obedience to the sublime Court, with the necessity of
quelling that sedition and tranquillizing the servants of the
victorious Nasiri dynasty, the sublime standards were put

$ Compare ELtiot here also. The Calcutta Printed Text has ¢l,; for €>
here.

6 There are several Taj-ud-Din, Sanjars, among the Maliks, two of whom,
Nos. XVII. and XIX., lived at this period, but this must bea different person
from either of them. Under the reign he is called a Sihwastani. See
page 703, and note ’.

7 The old city of Awadh is probably referred to.

8 The Sari—t,.—-gazetteerized into Sarjoo, Sarjou, &c.: Bhara’3j is on its
E. bank.

9 *Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, on the strength of Malik Kutlugh Khiin’s sup-
port, who, seemingly, belonged to the same party, refused to give up Bhara’l}
to Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar. The Sultan’s mother, Kutlugh Khan’s wife, was,
evidently, of the Raybani party also, and this may probably account for their
being sent away to Awadh so suddenly.

4 See under the reign, page 703, where the accounts of these events are
yery differently related.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 837

in motion from the capital, Dihli, on Thursday, the last day
of the month of Shawwal, 653 H., with the intention of
marching into Hindustan. When the royal tent was
pitched at Talh-pat’, as the [contingent] forces of the
Siwalikh ` [districts], which were the fiefs of Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam, had been delayed in the completion of their equip-
ment for the expedition, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam set out for
Hansi from the camp at Talh-pat, on Sunday, the 17th of
the month of Zi-Ka’dah, 653 H. On reaching the Hansi
territory, he, with the utmost celerity, issued his mandate,
so that, in the space of fourteen days, the troops of the
Siwalikh, Hansi, Sursuti, Jind [Jhind], and Barwalah‘, and
confines of that territory, assembled so fully organized and
equipped, numerous, and well provided with warlike
apparatus, that you would say they were a mountain of iron
when still, and a tempestuous sea when in motion’. He
reached the capital, Dihli [with this force], on the 3rd of
the month of Zi-Hijjah, and halted at the capital seventeen
days for the purpose of further completing his preparations,
and for the purpose of directing the assembling of the [con-
tingent] troops of the Koh-payah of Mewat. Onthe Igth
of Zi-Hijjah, with an army resplendent with arms, and
ranks arrayed with warriors, he proceeded towards the
Sultan’s camp; and in the month of Muharram, 654 H.,
they [the Sultan and his army] reached the frontiers of
Awadh. |

Malik Kutlugh Khan‘*, and those Amirs who followed
him—notwithstanding they were all vassals of the sublime
Court, still, through contingencies and urgent obstacles of
fate, the countenance of their good-fortune was strewn with
dust—left Awadh and crossed the river 52.1१, and receded
before the royal army. By the sublime command, in the

? Also written Tal-pat, about thirteen miles S.S.E. of the present city of
एणा.

3 There is not a word in the text, printed or otherwise, about Siwalik ग
^ these mountains.” See ELLIOT here.

५ The Burwala of the Indian Atlas, in Lat. 75° 59’, Long. 28° 22/

५ Compare ELLIOT also here.

¢ These events are related very differently under the reign, so much so
indeed, that any one might suppose they were the events of a different period.
Here there is not the least allusion to Malik Bak-Tamur’s defeat and death,
See page 703.

838 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

month of Muharram, 654 H., Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, with
numerous forces, started in pursuit of them’, but, as sepa-
ration had taken place among them’, [through] the obsta-
cles of the jangals of Hindistan, the deep ravines, and
denseness of numerous forests’, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam did
not find them. He pushed on until near to Badi-kot ', and
the frontiers of Tirhut, and ravaged the whole of the
independent [Hindi] tribes and 1२३65, and faced about to
return to the sublime threshold, with vast booty, in safety
and in opulence. Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, with the troops,
having crossed the river Sar’i, from Awadh, the sublime
standards were directed to return to the capital. When
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, from pursuing those [disaffected]
Amirs, turned his face to return to the ऽप ऽ encamp-
ment, he reached it in the limits of Kasmandah® and, on
Saturday, the 16th of the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 654
प्र, [the entire force] crossed the river Gang’, and they

7 Under the tenth year of the reign our author states that the Sultan, with
his army, advanced towards Awadh, on which Kutlugh Khan retired before
him, and the Sultan moved towards Ka-lair, and then Ulugh Khan was
despatched in pursuit of the rebels. He, however, did not come up with
them, and he returned, and rejoined the Sultan’s camp. All this is said to
have taken place in 653 H. ; and, when the new year came round, in Muharram
—the frst month—654 H., the Sultdn’s forces, after achieving this success—
the success of putting Kutlugh Khan to flight and not catching him—and the
Sultan, turned their faces towards Dibli, and reached it on the 4th of Rabi’-ul-
Akhir, just 1८८ months after.

As soon as Kutlugh Khan became aware of the return of the Sultan’s
troops towards Dihli—which they reached on the 4th of Rabi-ul-Akbir
654 H., as stated above—he began to lay hands upon the districts of Kayah
and Manik-piir, to the south of Awadh, and only found it necessary to take to
the northern hills after he had been defeated in an encounter with Arsalan
Khian-i-Sanjar. There is great difference in these accounts. See also
page 704, and note 5.

8 Not ‘‘They had, however, got a good start:” the words of the text
2116-५ ४], ७८५५२ ५ yon

9 This refers to what is termed the ‘‘ Zarrai,” but correctly—Tara’i—_Jlp—
the marshy forest at the foot of the Sub-Himalayah.

1 This name is very doubtful, and is written in various ways. The best and
oldest copies are as follows, according to the age and dependence to be placed
in them = GIS Zo Gm ATS SS Ut gt The
‘‘Calcutta” Text has , 9 ७ See also pages 704, 759, and 760.

2 Or Kasmandi: it is written both ways, but, as above, in the oldest
copies. It is the name of a town, now much decayed, giving name to the

parganah.

3 All the copies of the text collated, with the exception of two, are defective
here.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 839

reached the illustrious seat of government, Dihli, on the
4th of Rabi’-ul-Akhir.

As Malik Kutlugh Khan found it impossible to make
any further resistance within the limits of Hindustan, he
came, through the midst of the independent [Hindi]
tribes, towards Santir‘, and in that mountainous tract
sought shelter, and took up his abode’. All [the people
of that part] were wont to serve him, for he was a great
Malik, and one among the grandees, and a servant of the
‘Court ९, and one of the Turk Maliks, and had just claims
upon them all. Wherever he used to come, on account of
what was owed him for the past, and having regard for
the possible issue of his affairs, they were wont to hold him
in veneration. When he sought safety and protection in
the Santir mountains, Ranah Ran-pal’ [Ran-pala], the
Hindi, who held the chieftain-ship among the Hindis—and
it was the usage among that people to protect those who
sought shelter with them—assisted ° Malik Kutlugh Khan.

When the report of that came to the sublime hearing,
the royal standards, in the beginning of the month of
Rabi’-uJ-Awwal, 655 H., moved towards Santir, and
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, with his own personal forces, and
the Maliks of the Court [with their troops], used great
exertions in those mountains, and carried on holy war,
as by the faith enjoined, in the defiles of the hills and
passes, and on the crests of the mountains of Santiir, in
describing which the eye of intellect would be bewildered,
gained the advantage [over the infidels], and penetrated
as far as the fort and territory of Silmir [i.e. Sirmir] ’,

* His object, in proceeding towards Santir or Santiir-garh [Lat. 30° 24’,
Long. 78° 5'], according to the statement under the reign, was to reach the
Biah and Lahor, after he had been defeated by Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar,
which seems to be referred to at page 836, but our author’s account is very
confused.

$ There is not a word about chiefs.

¢ They were also doubtless aware that he had married the Sultan’s mother.

7 In one old copy Jy, in another Jl» but in others it is plainly written as
above, a correct Hindii name, from Ran—battle, &c.

* Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 375.

9 Nahin or Nahun, a very old place, situated on the acclivity of a mountain,
the defiles leading to which were fostified, in ancient times, was called the
shahr—city or town—of Silmir or Sirmir, and the territory belonging to it
was also called by the same name. From the description given of it by

849 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

which is in the possession of that great Rade. All the
Raes round about pay homage to him and do his bidding.
He fled' before the army of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam ; and
the whole of the market-place and city [town ?] of णा
was plundered by the Musalman troops. The followers of
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam acquired power over a place where
the troops of Islam, in any reign, had never before
penetrated; and, by the grace of the favour of the Creator,
the Glorious, the Most High, and the aid of the Divine
assistance, with great booty, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam [with
his forces] reached the sublime presence, and the illustrious
capital, Dihli, under the shadow of the august standards of
the kingdom, on the 25th of the month of Rabi’-ul-Akhir,
655 H.

On the return of the sublime standards to the capital,
Malik Kutlugh Khan issued from the mountains of Santir,
and Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khan, had [pre-
viously] marched out of the territory of Sind and advanced
to the vicinity of the river Biah*. These two great Maliks
[with their followers] effected a junction together, and
turned their faces towards Samanah and Kuhram, and
began to take possession of the country. When intimation
of that assemblage and this audacity reached the royal
hearing, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-
i-Kashli Khan [his brother], with other Maliks of the
Court, and troops, were appointed to proceed for the
purpose of quelling this sedition.

Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam moved from Dihli on Thursday,
the 15th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 655 प्त. 3, and
pushed on with the utmost expedition to the limits of
Kaithal; and Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan

modern travellers, and the remains of ancient buildings, it must have been a
strong place.

' If he fled, where was the fighting?—the ‘‘holy war as by the faith
enjoined?”

2 See the account of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khan, page 784.
At this time, he had thrown off his allegiance to Dihli, he had been to प्रणत
ki’s camp, had received a Mughal Shahnah [Intendant], and had sent a
grandson to the Mughals as a pledge of his own fidelity. This advance from
Uchchah and Multan was, evidently, with the object of aiding Kutlugh Khan,
and invading the Dihli territory. The Biah, at this period, flowed in its
former bed, as mentioned in a previous note.

3 See under the reign, page 707, and note 7,

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 84

and Malik Kutlugh Khan were in that vicinity. When
they drew near towards each other—all brethren and all
friends of each other, two hosts of one dynasty, two
cavalcades of one Court, two armies of one habitation,
two wings of one main body ‘*—never could there be a
case more wonderful than this! All were cronies of one
purse, and messmates over one dish, between whom, Satan,
the accursed, disclosed such discord. A gang of demon-
natured men, for their own carnal objects, and of their
infernal malignity, were sowing dissension among those
brethren* and were raising the banner of sedition, and,
for the aggrandisement of their own affairs, were setting
things by the ears. Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, in accordance
with his own wise policy, was keeping his own personal
followers together with those of Malik Sher Khan-i-Sun-
kar, who was his brother® and the son of his paternal
uncle, separate from the troops of [the contingents
forming] the centre of the Sultan’s forces, and Malik
Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan, the Amir-i-Hajib,
who was his own full brother, with the Maliks of the
Court, and the [contingent] troops of the centre, and the
elephants, separate also, in such wise that those two columns
of the army were appearing like two efficient and distinct
hosts.

The both armies [the Sultan’s and the rebels’] came
into near proximity to each other in the vicinity of
Samanah and Kaithal, and all were in expectation of an
engagement, when the intriguing among the _ turban-
wearers’ [i. €. ecclesiastics] of the capital, Dihli, indited

+ This last simile is somewhat differently expressed in a few copies where

७१--> cavity or hollow is used for js—a troop or body, &c. Compare
ELLIOT here, vol. ii. page 377.

3 Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khan, can hardly, by our author’s
own account, for the reasons mentioned in the previous note >, page 840,
have been considered as a subject of Dihli at this time.

* That is to say, like a brotherto him. He was, by relationship, his cousin.
The object of Ulugh Khan in keeping his own personal forces—not ^" the
household troops”—on whom he could depend, separate, is evident, as also
the object of stationing his brother with the other Maliks. The Sultin’s
mother, Kutlugh Khan’s wife, who, evidently, was the cause of a good deal
of this sedition, if not the whole of it, was also present with the disaffected
party.

7 Compare ठा, The original is plain enough in the printed text. See
also page 708, and note 9.

3 11 -

842 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRL

letters to Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, and
Malik Kutlugh Khan, and entreated them, saying: ^ The
gates of the city are in our hands: it behoveth you to
move towards the city, for it is denuded of troops. You
are among the servants and supporters of the sublime
Court, and are nothing alien intervening. When you shall
come hither, and shall attach yourselves to the service of
the exalted throne of sovereignty, Ulugh Khan, with that
army [now with him], will remain outside, and affairs will
come to pass according to desire; and this, which is stated
[herein], will be rendered easy and brought to pass.”

A number of persons among the loyal adherents of the
Sultan’s Court, and well-wishers of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam’s
service » on becoming aware of this hostility and design of
theirs [the turban-wearers’], with all despatch, wrote a
statement and sent it to Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, and, from
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, a representation reached the sublime
throne, to the effect that the disaffected parties should be
expelled from the city, the whole of which circumstances
are recorded in the account of the reign of Sultan Nasir-
ud-Din Mahmid Shah,—whose glory God preserve !—and,
in the details thereof, the names of the persons concerned
are mentioned’. May Almighty God overlook their
enmity, and cause them to repent of it!

During this state of affairs while the two armies were in
close proximity to each other, a person of a certain name,
whom they were wont to call the son of so-and-so,
came [to Ulugh Khan’s camp] as a spy on the part of
Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, and made out
that he was come to present himself to Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam, and [pretended], on the part of the Maliks and
Amirs who were supporting Malik Balban-i-Kashli Khan,
to represent that they all desired to make their submission
in Ulugh Khan’s presence, and that, if a deed of immunity
were granted, and the right hand pledged, assurance given,
and means of subsistence and a fief assigned to himself
who had presented himself before Ulugh Khan, he would

ॐ Among the first of whom was our author, no doubt.
9 The fact of the matter is that, generally, what is detailed there is
slurred over here, and what is slurred over there is detailed here. See also

page 785.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 843

bring over all the Maliks and Amirs of Malik Balban-i-
Kashlii Khan’s party, and cause them to be ranged on the
series of the other servants [of the state] '.

As Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, in secret, had become cognizant
of the bent of that individual, he commanded that the
whole of the troops should be paraded before him, in such
wise that he might behold the whole force with their arma-
ment, their numbers, their efficiency, and the elephants,
and horses in defensive armour’®. Then Ulugh Khan-
i-A’zam directed that a letter should be written secretly
and clandestinely to the Amirs and Maliks of Malik
Balban-i- Kashli Khan’s party saying: “ Your communica-
tions have come under observation, and the purport thereof
has been understood. There is no doubt that, if, in an
obedient manner, you shall present yourselves, fiefs and
suitable subsistence will be assigned to you; indeed even
more ; and, if the contrary should happen, on this day it
will be manifest and evident unto mortals what the upshot
of each one’s affairs will come to by the wound of the
flashing sword and flaming spear, and, when confounded
and humbled, bound in the bonds of destiny, they are
dragged to the foot of the sublime standards and banners.”
When that letter, after the manner of honey mixed with
gall, a sting with sweet drink, and graciousness with rigour,
was written, and that person went back again, and related
to Malik Balban-i-Kashli Khan—The Almighty have him
in His keeping !—all that he had seen and heard,’ those
having an insight into the human mind will conceive to
what the state of antagonism between the Maliks and
Amirs and the agent [deputed] would reach.

1 Compare ELLIOT.

2 What this defensive armour was like may be gathered from some of the
ancient illuminated historical 5.5, in the Persian language.

ग But the letter was not pivento him. The Calcutta Printed Text, following
a modern copy, has, ‘‘and had shown the letter,” but this is not so in the
oldest copies of the text. It stands to reason that, if ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban’s
spy, had brought that letter to his camp, much less shown it to that Malik
himself, the latter would have known that it was a mere ruse, and could have
suppressed the said letter, but the letter was written by command of Ulugh
Khin as if addressed to ’Izz-ud-Din Balban’s partisans, that it might fall into
"Izz-ud-Din Balban’s hands and rouse suspicion in his mind, that his own par-
tisans were negotiating with the other party. The modern copies of the text,
generally, are minus about two lines here.

3H 2

844 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

In the meantime the letters‘ from the city of Dihli
reached them, and Malik Balban-i-Kashla Khan, and Malik
Kutlugh Khan turned their faces towards the capital, but
returned again from thence without having effected their
object [as previously narrated].

Two days subsequently *, their design became known to
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, and he became disturbed in mind as
to how affairs might be [going on] at the Court, and before
the throne of sovereignty, when, after the happening of
this strange circumstance [the arrival of the spy in his
camp] letters reached him from the city®. He set out for
the capital, and reached it safe and prosperous under the
protection of the Creator, and under the Divine guardian-
ship and keeping, on Monday, the roth’ of the month of
Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 653 प.

The royal troops continued at the city of Dihli for a pe-
riod of seven months, until, in the month of Z1-Hijjah of the
before mentioned year, an army of infidel Mughals arrived
in the territory of Sind, and the head of those accursed
ones was the Ni-yin, Sari®. Since Malik Balban-i-Kashlu
Khan had brought a Shahnah [Intendant] of that people
thither’, as a matter of necessity, he had to go to them,
and they [the Mughals] dismantled the defences of the
citadel of Multan’. On intimation of this reaching his

* These are the letters referred to at page 842—not /vesh letters. This pas-
sage, with respect to the letter referred to in the previous note, and the letters
mentioned at page 842, is thus rendered in ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 378. = ^" When
the letter was delivered so the officers of Balban, the wise among them percewved
its drift, and knew that the dissensions between the nobles and generals would be
settled elsewhere (yakjd). Fresh letters now arrived from Dehli, and Malik
Balban and Katlagh Khan set forth in that direction and showed no intention
of returning’ !! There is nothing of this kind in the Printed Text, nor in any
MSS. copy. See under the reign, page 707, and in the account of Malik ’Izz-
ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, where these events are given in detail.

$ The patrols of Ulugh Khian’s army could not have kept a very sharp
look-out in this case.

6 See under the reign, pages 708—710, where our author relates differently,
and also note !.

7 At page 710, the date given 15 the 14th of that month.

$ In other places he is styled Salin and Salt, which last is the same as Sari,
¢ being interchangeable with ~

9 See the account of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, page 786.

1 In ELLIOT [vol. ii. page 378], this passage is rendered :-—‘* When their
general brought in this army, Malik Balban went to them of necessity, and
the forces of the fort of Multan fel/ dack,”. but the Calcutta Printed Text,

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 845

august hearing, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam represented for the
consideration of the sublime Court, that it was advisable
that the royal standards of the kingdom, conjoined with
victory and triumph, should move from the capital. It was
the year 656 H., and, on the 2nd’ of the month of
Muharram of that year, the sublime standards, under an
auspicious horoscope, moved out from the capital, and the
Sultan’s tent was set up’ outside, in sight of the city of
ऋ. In consultation with Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, man-
dates were at once issued and despatched to all parts of the
country, to the great Maliks and Lords of the kingdom,
and on the confines, directing them all to turn their faces
towards the capital, and, in the greatest possible state of
efficiency, present themselves [with their contingents] at
the sublime threshold. On the roth of the month of
Muharram, within the tent of sovereignty, which in victory
and triumph be ever set up, and the ropes of its prosperity,
be secured with the pegs of stability!—this suppliant, by
command, delivered an exhortation‘, with the object of

although so often incorrect, is right in this instance. The compound verb here
used is not necessarily /aro-raftan, to subside, come down, &c., but the verb
faro-ruftan—the consonants are the same in both, but not the vowels—to
sweep away, destroy, and the like.

The correct reading, as in all copies of the text, is evidently ,len .sle,em-<ie
325, 99 wl. literally :—They swept away, destroyed, the parapet wall, battle-
ments, pinnacles, &c., of the citadel of Multan, The object of the Mughals,
taken into consideration with the fact of their harassing the frontiers of the Dihli
kingdom as far as the west bank of the Biah, at this period, is plain enough.
Their object also will be further seen from the events mentioned in the last
Section. Malik Balban gave Multan up to them as a vassal of their sovereign,
and they then dismantled it, that it might not be an obstacle to them in future.

> The 6th of the month at page 711.

3 It is usual to pitch a tent in this manner previous to undertaking a journey
or expedition, but, in this case, it does not follow that the Sultan dwelt in it
the whole time. In this instance, it was like ‘‘a sovereign setting up his
Standard ” around which his troops assembled, in fact it is so stated just above.
In ELLIoT, this passage is incorrectly rendered ‘‘ Ulugh Khan advised his
Majesty to set the royal army in motion, and, accordingly, ४ marched forth on
the 2nd Muharram.” It was not assembled yet, as our author plainly states.
Mandates were issued for the Maliks to present themselves with their
contingents. There is not a word either about collecting ‘‘all the forces
they could.”

* Here, too, is an absurd mistake in the same work [page 379]: ‘‘On the
10th Muharram, the author received orders i# the royal tent to compose an ODE
o stir up the feelings,” &c.! The words, as inthe Printed Text also, are,
Sexi dic which have nothing to do with odes. ।

846 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

stimulating to holy warfare, and the merit of fighting
against infidels, and efforts to defend the glories of Islam,
and serve the sublime Court, by obeying the orders of the
legitimate commanders—May God increase the execution
of His commands !—and Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, with a body
of troops in array, and attended by a numerous equipage,
in association with the august stirrup of sovereignty, issued
णप ०. All the Maliks joined [with their contingents],
and all the troops united.

When intimation of this concentration reached the
accursed [Mughals] and their camp, they did not advance
beyond the frontiers which they had assailed and ravaged,
and evinced no further audacity*®; but it was considered ad-
visable that the army, fora period of four months, or even
longer’, should remain concentrated within sight of the city.
Bodies of horse [during this period] used to go out in various
directions, and make holy war upon the independent
[Hindi] tribes, until, when news of the withdrawal of those
accursed [Mughals] arrived, and the heart was freed ef the

$ The words are ~ 4o:—came out, i.e. from the city to the camp,
not that they ‘‘ marched in company with his majesty.” The force never moved
out of sight of Dihli. The troops, which did come out of Dihli with the
Sultan and Ulugh Khan, were personal followers, a large force in themselves.
Those of the Sultan might be styled the household troops. Detachments of
horse only were sent out, and those not against the Mughals.

6 This concentration of the fortes of Dihli, if not intended as a defensive
act, turned out to be one, and the Mughals were left to ravage the frontier
provinces—which then appear not to have extended beyond the 8721), that is,
when it flowed in its o/d ded already referred to—with impunity. The state of
Mewat, and the independent Hindi tribes, appear to have prevented operations
against the Mughals, as referred to at page 850. See also page 862, where our
author states that Hulakii Khan was so good, out of regard for Ulugh Khan,
as to direct his iorces not to molest the frontiers of the Dihli kingdom, a suff-
ciently humiliating statement for our author to make.

This passage is rendered in ELLIOT [page 379]: "^ When ¢he infidel Mughal
heard of this host on the frontier he had assailed, he advanced no further and
showed no spirit,” &c. All the copies of the text are as above, even the
«° official’ Calcutta Printed Text.

7 At page 712, ‘‘five months,” but seven months was the correct period.
See note 7 to that page. The 4a/é or [the troops forming the] centre of the
Sultan’s army returned to the city, from the camp outside, on the st of
Ramazan.

The forces continued thus encamped in sight of the capital all the hot season,
until the commencement of the rains. The year 656 H. began 7th January,
1258 A.D.—the year in which Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and the
other Barons, his supporters, imposed terms upon King Henry III.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 847

sedition of that gathering, [the Hindiis*] a number of
intelligencers brought to the blessed hearing of Ulugh Khan-
i-A’zam that, probably, Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan-i-San-
jar °, from Awadh, and Kutlugh [Kulich ?] Khan’, Mas’iid-
i-Jani, on account of their having delayed in joining the
Sultan’s camp’, were, in consequence, in a state of appre-
hension, and in their minds thoughts of contumacy were
presenting themselves. Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam submitted to
the notice of the sublime Court that, before that party
acquired feathers and wings, and, through the fear they
were in, should take a flight into the air of contu-
maciousness, it was advisable that time should not be
given them, and that this fire should be speedily
smothered.

In conformity with the prudent advice of Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam, notwithstanding it was the time of the hot season,
and that the army of Islam, on account of the advance of
the accursed Mughals, and guarding the frontiers, had ex-
perienced trouble, still, as there was expediency in moving,
on Tuesday, the 6th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir,
656 H., the sublime standards departed towards the country
of Hindiistan*, and advanced, march by march, as far as the
boundaries of Karah and Manik-pir*. Ulugh Khian-i-

8 As mentioned a few lines before. The Mughals were not gone yet.

9 See under Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, page 768.

1 In one of the oldest copies Kutlugh Khan, Mas’iid-i-Jani. This is not the
Kutlugh Khan who married the Sultain’s mother, but a son of Malik ’Ala-ud-
Din, Jani, the Shah-zadah of Turkistan, referred to in the List of Shams-ud-
Din, I-yal-timish’s Maliks, at page 626. For more respecting Kulij, Kulich,
or Kutlugh Khan, who, under the reign, at pages 673 and 712, is also styled,
but wrongly, Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah-i-Jani, see note at page 775, para. 3,
and page 848.

2 The camp before Dihli just previously referred to.

® The Antarbed Do-abah.

* In his account of this Malik [page 768] our author says that, after Malik
Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar had been successful against Kutlugh Khan [the step-
father of the Sultan], he became disaffected towards the Court, and Ulugh
Khan had to move into Awadh and Kayah to coerce him and Kutlugh
[Kulich?] Khan, Mas’iid, son of the late Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani [see List of
nobles, page 673}. Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar was entrusted with the government
of the fief of Kayah in 657 H., and, subsequently, got possession of the City
of Lakhanawati by treachery, and without orders from the Court, and yet, in
his account of the events of the thirteenth year of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid
Shah’s reign, our author says that, on Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id 303४9,

848 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

A’zam made such exertions in chastising ‘the seditious
Hindis and harassing the Ranahs as cannot be conceived.
On his reaching that territory [Karah and Manik-pur],
Arsalan Khian-i-Sanjar, and Malik Kutlugh [Kulich ?]
Khan, Mas’id-i-Jani, got away, and out of necessity sent
away their families and dependents among the independent
[Hindi] tribes, and despatched confidential persons to the
presence of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam asking that he should
make a representation before the exalted throne and
explain the necessity they were under of withdrawing,
and to supplicate that the sublime standards might
be directed to return towards the capital on the stipula-
tion that, when the royal standards should reach Dihh,
the illustrious capital, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar and Kut-
lugh [Kulich ?] Khan, both of them, should present them-
selves in attendance at the sublime Court, the Asylum of
the Universe. When Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam made this
representation, the sublime standards returned towards
Dihli, and, on Monday, the 2nd of the month of
Ramazan, 656 H., the illustrious seat of government was
reached.

On Sunday, the 27th of the month of Shawwal, of the same
year, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, and Kutlugh [Kulich?] Khan,
Mas’id-i-Jani, presented themselves at the threshold of
sovereignty, and made their obeisance. Notwithstanding
so much opposition, their flight, and the tardiness and
negligence they had displayed, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam gave
them his support, and manifested towards them such
kindness, gentleness, moderation, good faith, and sym-
pathy, out of his great benevolence and infinite cle-
mency, and lordly assistance and princely favour, as
neither the fingers can record nor explanation relate.
May the Most High God have him perpetually in His
keeping for the sake of Muhammad and the whole of his
posterity !

After a period of two months, through Ulugh Khan-i-
_ A’zam’s patronage, the states of Lakhanawati were made

son of the late Malik Jani, the kingdom of Lakhanawati was conferred. The
account here given, and that in the notice of Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, are
widely different. The discrepancies respecting Lakhanawati I have noticed at
page 770.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 849

over to Kutlugh [Kulich?]°* Mas’iid-i-Jani’s charge,
and the district of Karah* to Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar.

When the new year of 657 H. set in, on the 13th of the
month of Muharram, the sublime standards were directed
to be moved out of the capital, and the pavilion of majesty
was pitched in sight of the city of Dihli’. Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam—may God perpetuate his prosperity !—held it meet
to exercise his patronage in behalf of Malik Nusrat-ud-Din,
Sher Khian-i-Sunkar, who was his paternal uncle’s son, and
he made a representation before the exalted throne, so that
the whole of the territory of Bhianah, Kol, Jali-sar, and the
preserved city of Gwaliyir was entrusted to his charge म,
and that assignment was committed to him on Sunday, the
21st of the month of Safar, 657 H. For the remainder of
that year, by reason that—and thank God for it!—there
was no cause of apprehension, the sublime standards made
no farther movement’.

On Wednesday, the 4th of the month of Jamadi-ul-
Akhir, 657 H., treasure, valuables, and elegancies to a large
amount, with two elephants, reached the sublime threshold
from the Lakhanawati territory, and Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam,
in return for such commendable assiduity, exerted [his]
interest, in behalf of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Yiz-
Baki,’ who was the sender of these elephants and property ;
and the investiture of the fief of Lakhanawati was bestowed
upon him by his majesty, and that territory was confirmed
to him, and a robe of honour and other distinctions were
transmitted to him.

5 In this place again there is a great difference in the title of this personage.
In seven copies of the text, including the oldest, he is styled Kulij, in one
Kutlugh, and in three Kulij or Kulich.

¢ In some copies the Koh-payah: perhaps both Kayah and the Koh-payah
districts may be meant.

7 In ELLIOT, they are made again ¢ march from Dihli, which is not so stated,
even in the Calcutta Text. The reason why no marching was necessary is
given below.

® See the account of Malik Sher Khin-i-Sunkar, page 794. There it is
stated that BalZram, Baltarah, Mihir, and Mahawan, were also entrusted to
him. Under the reign, page 712; there is no mention of Jali-sar

9 In Rajab of this year a grandson was born to Ulugh Khan. His daughter,
Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shih’s wife, presented her husband, the Sultan, with
a son; and two months after, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, the Ulugh Kutlugh-
i-A’zam, the Bar-Bak, died.

’ This is the person referred to at pages 770 and 827.

85० THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

When the new year 658 H. came round, and the month
of Safar arrived, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam resolved upon making
a raid upon the Koh-payah [hill tracts of Mewat] round
about the capital, because, in this Koh-payah, there was a
community of obdurate rebels, who, unceasingly, committed
highway robbery and plundered the property of Musal-
mans, and the ejection of the subject peasantry, and de-
struction of the villages in the districts of Harianah, the
Siwalikh, and Bhianah, necessarily followed their outbreaks.
Three years* previous to this period, they had likewise
carried off herds of camels, the property of the vassals and
loyal followers of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam’s household—be =
victory ever theirs!—from the outskirts of the Hansi territory.
The leader of the rebels was a person, Malka * by name, an
obdurate Hindi gadr [infidel], like a gigantic demon and a
serpent-hued "772४ ^. They had carried off herds of camels
and camel-men, and had, in the meantime, dispersed them
among the Hindiis throughout the Koh-payah [hill tracts],
as far as the vicinity of Rantabhir, and the time that these
camel-men and camels were carried off was a time when
an expedition was pending, and the camp-followers of the
force, and the warriors of the retinue of Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam, were in urgent need of them for the purpose of carry-
ing the equipage of the troops. When that contumacious
rebel committed this act, an infinite load weighed upon the
dear heart of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, and all the Maliks and
Amirs and warriors of the troops of Islam—May God ever
accord victory to them! Nevertheless, it was impossible to
chastise that sedition by reason of anxiety [consequent] on
the appearance of the Mughal army’ which continued to
harass the frontier tracts of the dominions of Islam, namely,
the territory of Sind, Lohor’, and the line of the river

ॐ Two copies have ‘‘one year,” but this can scarcely be correct. The
period referred to seems to be the year 656 H., on the appearance of the
Mughals under Sari, on the western frontier. See page 844.

3 This must not be supposed to refer to Dalaki, of Malaki, the great Ranah
in the vicinity of the river Jiin, between K4linjar and Kayah, for he is a wholly
different person. ‘

+ Compare ELLIOT here.

5 The words are, correctly, as rendered above :— Jas =) ally क Jo ५ 1
The Printed Text has aio for @1 and, hence, the passage in Elliot is
incorrect.

५ Not much of Lohor remained for them to harass at that time belonging
to Dihli; but see page 846, where our author says the Mughals ‘evinced no

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 851

Biah, until, at this period, emissaries of Khurasan 7 [coming]
from the side of ’Irak from Hulai [Hulaki], the Mughal,
who was the son of Tili, son of Chingiz Khan, had arrived
in the neighbourhood of the capital. Command was given
that the emissaries’ party should be detained at the halting-
places of Baritah १, and that vicinity ; and Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam, and other Maliks, with the forces of the Court, and
the [contingent] troops of the [different] Maliks *, suddenly
and unexpectedly, resolved upon an advance into the Koh-
payah [hill-tracts of Mewat].

On Monday, the 4th of the month of Safar’, 658 H., the
sublime standards of victory pushed forward into the Koh-
payah, and, in the first advance, made a march of nearly
fifty £uroh*, and fell, unexpectedly and unawares upon the

further audacity,” &c. More on this subject will be found in the following
Section.

7 These were not ‘‘ambassadors to the Sultan,” who ‘‘came To. [sic]
Khurdsén from "Irak, on the part of Hulaku Mughal, son of Zo//,” as in
ELLioT [page 381], and had the ‘‘ long digression of no interest” —from
page 196 to 202, farther on, been translated, it would have been found who
and what they were.

8 The name of this place is written with 5—.5),4—as above in eight copies
of the text, including the three oldest, with the slight exception of there being
no point to the 4, thus :—zis,\—and the next to the last letter having but
one point instead of two in one of the three copies; three copies have ५१, ४
tending to confirm the above reading; and one has wy ,4 The Calcutta
Printed Text has 4,,.—Mariitah, but this I look upon as a mere guess on
the part of the Editors, because it is a well-known place, and more particularly
since, in a foot-note, that text has siy,h—ary, b—ars,b

It is evident, from all this, that the first letter is 6 and not ऋ, and there can
be little doubt but that the next to the last letter is ¢ There is a place in the
Baywalah Parganah named—.jly,. and there is Mariit—5,.—in the direct
route from Uchchah to Dihli, but this cannot be meant here, for our author
has written that name correctly in two different places ; and there are other
Mirits, but not in this direction. It appears to me that the place is 49 or + १४
styled Sarde-i-Bariitah, from the ruins of an extensive karwan-sarde, two
kuroh to the S.E. of Jagdespiir, on the road from Dihli to Suni-pat, and, about
twenty miles N.W. of the capital, the Sarde being a convenient distance, and
an eligible place wherein to lodge them until the muster of the forces, referred to
at page 856, was complete, which muster was, no doubt, to enable the emissaries
to carry back with them a good impression respecting the number and efficiency
of the Dihli forces.

9 Among the Maliks who accompanied Ulugh Khan upon this expedition,
and also on the subsequent one, was Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan
[No. XVII.], who was ordered from Awadh for the purpose. See end of the
year 657 H., under the reign.

1 Under the reign, the date is the 13th of Safar.

2 Near upon 100 miles. Such a word as ‘‘ hos,” which is Sanskrit, as in
ELLIoT, does not occur throughout this work.

852 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

contumacious rebels of that tract. All those that were on
the mountain sides, in the deep defiles, and great ravines,
were taken and were brought under the swords of the
Musalmans. For a period of twenty days he (Ulugh
Khan-i-A’zam] continued to move about that Koh-payah
in every direction. The dwelling-places and villages of
those mountaineers were on the summits of the high hills,
and the whole of their edifices on the acclivities of rocks,
so that you would say they were, in altitude, equal to the
stars, and even with the sky. By command of Ulugh
Khin-i-A’zam, the whole of those places which, in strength,
might compare with the tale told of the wall of Sikandar
in solidity, were captured and plundered, and the people
of those places, who were knaves, Hindiis, thieves, and
high-way robbers, were all put to the sword. The Ulugh
Khani orders to that army of holy warriors were, that
whoever should bring in a head should receive one fangah
of silver, and whoever brought in a man alive two fangahs
of silver from the private treasurer.

The defenders of the truth, in conformity with Ulugh
Khan-i-A’zam’s commands, penetrated into all the loftiest
places, into the defiles, and deep ravines*, and acquired
heads and captives, and became filled with property and
money, especially the sept of Afghans, every one of whom
you might say was some huge elephant with [the tails of]
two Khita-i bulls‘ over his shoulders, or some tall tower of
a fortress, placed on its summit, for the purpose of over-
awing, with banner displayed. The number of them,
employ-d in the service of, and attending the stirrup of,
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, was about 3000 horse and foot,
daring, intrepid, and valiant soldiers, each one of whom,
either on mountain or in forest, would take a hundred
Hindiis in his grip, and, in a dark night, would reduce a

3 In nearly every instance, throughout this work, the Calcutta Printed Text
uses ४,१ and (5७, for 5,5) and csla,y

+ The same word—ghajz-ghae—is used here as applied to Nagir-ud-Din,
Sabuk-Tigin, page 68. It evidently refers to their hairy faces and the long
curly hair hanging down their backs, and as some tribes wear their hair to this
day. These Afghans are the first PATANS mentioned in this work, and in no
other place in it, cither before or after, are they mentioned. Compare ELLIOT
here also.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 853

demon to utter helplessness*. In short, the whole of the
Maliks and Amirs, Turks and Tajziks, displayed zeal and
energy, the mention of which will ever endure upon the
pages of time; and, up to this period, since the standards of
Islam were first displayed in the land of Hind, at no time
had the Musalman troops ever before reached that locality
or ravaged it®. Under the auspices of the good fortune of
the Sultan of Sultans, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, the
Most High God facilitated the delivery into the hands of
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam that obdurate Hindi, who had
carried off those camels and camel men, together with his
sons and family, all of whom were taken, and the decree of
fate brought them into the bondage and captivity of Ulugh
Khan-i-A’zam’s followers, and the whole of the heads and
chiefs of the rebels, to the number of about 250 persons,
among the chief men of that people, fell into the chains of
bondage. One hundred and forty-two horses reached the
Sultan’s stables, and sixty dadrahs’ of tangahs, the amount
of [each of ?] which was 35,000° ¢angahs, he [Ulugh Khan]
extorted from the Ranahs and Raes of that mountain tract’,
and they were conveyed to the royal treasury ; and, in the

५ One of the St. Petersburg copies of the text ends the Section here, and
passes at once to the last Section.

° The tract of country here indicated, the Koh-payah of our author, seems
to be Bharatpiir, Dholpiir, and part of the Rajpit states of Jaiptir and Alwar.
The Musalmans had penetrated before this much farther south to the vicinity
of the Narbadah.

We may be sure these successes will not be found recorded in Rajpit annals.

7 A small bag of cotton or linen cloth, goats’ leather, or felt cloth, rather
longer than broad. The word also means a bag of 10,000 airams.

8 The probability is that each dadrah contained that number of /amgahs—in
value about as many ruipis—in which case the total would be 2,100,000 faugahs,
or about equal to 21 /aés of riipis, not a very large sum to extort from several
rich Raes and Ranahs, the smaller sum would have been too paltry to convey to
the royal treasury. One of the best copies has gold éamgahs, in which case
the total amount may have been that given above, but, even then, the sum would
be but a comparatively paltry one.

9 In the Printed Text, the original word—.=.—he extorted— from the verb
—ywuk.—is turned into—sx..—and this has been followed in ELuiot,
hence this sentence has assumed the following amusing form: ‘‘and six bags
of tankas, amounting to thirty thousand tankas, were /aken from the Ranas of
the hills and the Adds of SIND, and sent to the royal treasury.”

As the word ss stands in the place of—s:.—there is no word for ¢aken in
this sentence in the Printed Text, and so the literal translation of it would be :

९८5० much from the Ranahs, &c., to the royal treasury conveyed ”— an unintel-
ligible jumble of words.

854 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

space of twenty days, such were the important feats effected
through the vigorous and energetic command of Ulugh
‘Khan-i-A’zam—May his glory ever continue!

On the 24th of the month Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 658 पत
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam returned to the capital. The august
canopy of sovereignty, and the king of the world like an
imperial sun under the shadow thereof—God perpetuate
his sovereignty !—and all the Maliks, Amirs, Sadrs, men of
rank and position, and the inhabitants of the city, came out
to the plain of the Hauz-i-Rani [the Rani’s Reservoir], and
drew up in lines, extending from the Bagh-i-Jiid’ (the Jad
Garden] to the Rani’s Reservoir,’ and hastened in the
footsteps of loyalty to meet and do honour to the sub-
lime standards which accompanied Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam *.
The Sultan of Sultans—God long preserve his sovereignty!
—at the head of the Rani’s Reservoir, on the exalted
seat of the throne of sovereignty, held an audience, and
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, with the Maliks and Amirs of the
force, arrayed in robes of honour conferred by Ulugh
Khan himself, attained the honour of kissing the threshold
of the place of audience, so that one might say, from the
various coloured robes, of satin, silk, brocade, gold and
silver tissue, and other expensive textures, and gold em-
broidered tunics and other garments, that that plain
bloomed like a thousand flower gardens. All these
Grandees, Maliks, Amirs, incomparable champions and
warriors of the force, one day previous to this, in their own
quarters, had donned these honorary dresses from out of
the lordly treasury of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam—May it never
cease being replete with riches and spoils !—and [now] the
whole of them, victorious and triumphant, safe and rich,
hied to the sublime audience-hall, and great and small—
high and low—attained the honour of kissing the Sultan's
hand, together with thousands of commendations, favours,

1 In one copy of the text—one of the older ones—this is here written with
the vowel points—3 ye s.—Bagh-i-Chiiad. It is, however, nowhere else
written so. In Arabic—»s—jiid—signifies liberality, munificence, but the
original may be a local name.

2 The Hamilton A/S. is minus the whole of the remainder of this Section.

3 This grand reception plainly shows that Ulugh Khan’s force had achieved
a great success over the unbelievers.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 85

and assurances, and returned thanks to the Most High and
Holy God for that success *.

After two days, the royal cavalcade [again] proceeded
out of the city to the plain at the Rani’s Reservoir, with the
intention of making an example of infidels, and command
was given for the elephants, of mountain-like form and
reaching to the sky, of demon-like aspect, and wind-like
speed—so that you might say they were the delegates of
destiny and the soldiers of the angel of death—to be brought
for the purpose of inflicting condign punishment upon the
infidels. The relentless Turks, of the profession of Mars,
drew their well-tempered, fire-flashing, swords from the
scabbards of power, and then the sublime order was issued
so that they commenced to execute [the rebels]. After
that, some of those rebels they cast at the feet of the ele-
phants, and made the heads of Hindis, under the heavy
hands and feet of those mountain-like figures, the grain in
the orifice of the grinding mill of death; and, by the keen
swords of the ruthless Turks, and the life-ravishing exe-
cutioners, every two of these Hindiis were made four, and,
by scavengers, with knives, such that, at the gashes of them,
a demon would be horror-stricken, a hundred and odd rebels
were flayed from head to foot, and at the hand of their
skinners, they quaffed, in the goblet of their own heads, the
Sharbat of death, Command was given so that they
stuffed the whole of their skins with straw, and suspended
them over every gate-way of the city.

In short, an example of retribution was made such as
the plain at the Rani’s Reservoir, and the open space
before the gate of Dihli never remembered the like of, and
the ear of no hearer ever heard a tale so terrible as ६112६.
Such like religious warfare and victory over the infidels,
and such amount of booty was acquired, and such efforts

+ In EL.iot [page 382, vol. ii.], the Editor considering that ^ The author
here becomes very diffuse in his descriptions and praises, which are not worth
translation,” this entire paragraph is dismissed with a very few words :—
“His Majesty, with a great retinue of chiefs and nobles, came forth to the
plain of Hauz-rdn{ to meet Aim, and a great court was held in which many
honours and rewards were bestowed.”

* We must make allowances for the age in which this occurred, but what an
idea it gives us of the merciful disposition, and amiability of ‘‘the king of the
world,” and copier of Kur’ans, if he had any authority !

856 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

were brought about through the power of the Ulugh
Khani good fortune. May the Most High God preserve
the Sultan of Sultans, NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN,
MAHMUD SHAH, on the throne of sovereignty, and adorn
the exalted seat of ULUGH KHAN-I-A’ZAM with perma-
nency and stability ! °

Having achieved such deeds, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam re-
presented before the sublime throne, that it was right that
the Khuradsan emissaries‘ should be conducted to the
capital, and attain the honour of kissing the rvyal hand.
On the command being issued, on Wednesday, the 8th of
the month of Rabi’-ul-Akhir, 658 H., the august retinue [of
the Sultan] moved to the Kishk-i-Sabz [the Green Castle],
and Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam gave orders, so that the Sahib,
the Diwan-i-’Ariz-i-Mamialik [the Head of the Department
of the Muster-master of the Kingdom] marshalled in order
the men bearing arms from the different parts around and
in the vicinity of the capital. About 200,000 footmen,
well armed, came to Dihli, and they drew up, in battle
array, about 50,000 horse *, fully equipped with defensive
armour, and with banners [displayed] ; and of the popu-
lace of the city—the higher, midale, and lower classes—so
many men bearing arms, both on horseback and on foot
went forth, that, from the Shahr-i-Nau [new city] of Gili-
khari to within the city where was the Royal Kasr, twenty
lines ° of men, one behind the other—like the avenue of a
pleasure - garden with the branches entwined — placed
shoulder to shoulder, stood row after row. Truly you might
say— It is the last great day, the time of the general re-
surrection, the hour of perturbation, the rendering of
account of good and evil ”—through the experience, energy,

® Compare ELLIOT here.

7 Now, in ELLIOT, we have ‘‘¢ke Mughal ambassador 1N Khurasan.” In
the Printed Text ‘‘ ¢Aey”” correctly, the—J+,—[plural of Jy] lls See
note 7, page 851.

8 The Calcutta ‘‘ official” Printed Text, copying the I.0.L. AS. 1952, has
a very amusing blunder here. Instead of ssUl—signifying ^" prepared,”
‘‘ready,” “drawn up,” &c., after—,!,.—it has—sol.—signifying ‘‘ female”—
y\y~—thus turning them into 50,000 female horse!! The R. A. 5. AZS. 15 also
incorrect, but has— ,94.—not—.o.—and the former word is meaningless.

® Twenty-seven lines, in some copies: ‘‘The author becomes very ditluse
in his description and praises, which are not worth translation,” according tv
EL.10T, vol. ii. page 382, which see.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 857

control, and lieutenancy of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam—God
perpetuate his good fortune! The arrangement of the
lines, the assignment of the place of every one of the Amirs,
Maliks, Grandees, and Sadrs, with their followings and
dependants, the disposition of the standards and banners,
the donning of arms, the preservation of every one’s rank,
which Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam directed, he himself saw to,
by moving from one end of the lines to the other, placing
every one in the place which had been assigned to him.

That concourse of people presented such a tremendous
appearance, that the ear of the heavens, at the din of the
tymbals and kettle-drums, the cries of the trumpeting ele-
phants, the neighings of the prancing horses, and the voci-
ferations of the people, became deaf, and the eye of the
malicious and envious blind. When the Turkistan emis-
saries' mounted and set out from the Shahr-i-Nau [of
Gili-khari], and their sight fell upon that concourse, their
fright was such from the awe inspired by that immense
concourse and the warlike apparatus, that the danger was
lest the bird of their souls should take wing from their
bodies. It is most likely—indeed it is the fact—that, at the
time of the charge of the trumpeting elephants, some of’
those emissaries got thrown from their horses and fell to
the ground. May the Most High God avert the evil eye
from this kingdom and realm, capital and army, and the
Maliks of the dynasty !

When the emissaries* reached the city gate, by the royal
command, and the approval of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, all
the Maliks observed the custom of going to receive them,
and, in doing honour to the emissaries’ party, observed
[towards them] the usages ‘of respect, and with due reve-

1 They are so-called here in all the copies of the text collated, with a single
exception, but, hitherto, they have always been styled emissaries ‘‘ from Khu-
raisin,” and ‘‘ of Khurasin,” and the context proves the above a mistake for
Khurasin, because they came from thence, and not from Turkistin. See page `
859.

3 They and their followers must be meant, as the emissaries were but three
in all.

* These persons came with no political object : merely respecting this matri-
monial alliance with Ulugh Khan, and therefore I have neither styled them
envoys nor “‘ambassadors from ” Eulakii Khan, but Ulugh Khan evidently
wished to let them see the Dihli forces to the best advantage, and carry back a
good report of them. ।

31

858 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

rence conducted them to the Kasr-i-Sabz [the Green
Castle] and before the exalted throne of sovereignty. On
that day, the Castle of Sovereignty was adorned with various
kinds of carpets and cushions, and a variety of princely
articles of luxury and convenience, both of gold and silver,
and round about the royal throne two canopies‘, one red
and the other black, adorned with jewels of great price,
were extended. The golden throne ornamented with the
masnad [seat] of empire, and the series of illustrious Maliks,
great Amirs, distinguished Sadrs, eminent personages, the
handsome young Turk slaves with golden girdles, and the
champions in pomp and pride ranged around, made the
assembly halls studded with gems, and saloons burnished
with gold, seem like unto the garden of bliss, and the eighth
heaven, so that the [following] lines having become applic-
able to the occasion, and having been pronounced before
the exalted throne by one of the sons of this suppliant,
from his composition, are here introduced. [These lines
are a mere repetition of the same fulsome epithets and
exaggerated figures as are found in the preceding and
following prose, and are scarcely worth insertion here.]

Thou mightest with truth say that that assembly was as
a heaven full of stars, or like a firmament teeming with
planets. The sovereign of the universe on the throne ap-
peared as a sun from the fourth heaven, with Ulugh
Khan-i-A’zam in attendance asa shining moon, kneeling
upon the knees of veneration and reverence, the Maliks in
rows like unto revolving planets, and the Turks in their
gold and gem-studded girdles like unto stars innume-
rable.

In short, all this arrangement, and preparation, and
[these] different matters, were carried out with the approval,
and wise counsel, and sagacious conception of Ulugh
Khin-i-A’zam, for, although the Sultan of Sultans, in con-
formity with the Prophet’s sayings, accords to him the
position of a father, nevertheless he is more obedient and
submissive than a thousand newly-purchased slaves. So

* If ~2—signified an smérella merely, it would scarcely be applicable here.
What canopies of state are may be seen from Plate vii. to Blochmann’s Trans-
lation of the A’In-i-Akbart.

* [ should imagine that this remark—in fact the whole of this account—

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 859 `

the emissaries, after their reception, were conducted, after
receiving various marks of favour, and different benefits
were conferred upon them, to the assigned place prepared
‘for their residence.

It is necessary at, this place to mention what was the
motive of the arrival of these emissaries from the country
of Khurasan,* and from Hula’t [Hulaki] Khan, the Mughal,
and how it fell out. The facts of the matter are these, that
Malik Nagir-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Malik Hasan the
Karlugh—The Almighty’s mercy be upon him !—perhaps,
entertained a strong inclination to cause a pearl from the
oyster shell of his family to be transferred to the string of
marriage to Shah,’ the son of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, in
order that, through that union, he [Nasir-ud-Din, Muham-
mad] might display his glory over the Maliks of the time
and the great rulers of the world, and that that connexion
might be a means of strength to him, and a source of
security. On this subject he wrote secretly and con-
fidentially, to one of the servants of the household of
Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, and endeavoured to obtain an inkling
as to the possibility of the [proposed] connexion, 270 inti-
mated that he himself would, under this veil, submit the
matter for the august consideration of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam,
by way of sincerity and duty. As Malik Nasir-ud-Din,
Muhammad, son of Hasan the Karlugh, was one of the
illustrious Maliks of his day,° it became necessary, on the
clearly proves that Ulugh Khan was not Sultan when this was written. It is
somewhat remarkable that our author has never once mentioned whether Ulugh
Khan had obtained his freedom or not. We must hence suppose that he had
not, for our author would scarcely have omitted to mentionsuch an important fact.

* The following six paragraphs are what, in ELLIot [page 383, vol. ii.], is
said, by the Editor, to be ‘‘a long digression of no interest.”

7 All the copies of the text are alike here, but it is very certain that Ulugh
Khan’s son must have had some other name prefixed to the word Shah, but no
son of his is mentioned in history of whose name Shah forms a part.

€ See Thomas : PATHAN K1NGs, page 98. It is there stated that he, Nasir-
ud-Din, Muhammad, the Karlugh, ‘‘scems to have succeeded to his father’s
dominions in Sid, and to have been held in consideration as a powerful
monarch. He was still reigning on the arrival of the ambassadors of Hulagt
Khan in 4. प्र. 658.” His holding dominions in Sind is entirely erroneous. Malik
"Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kaghli Khan, held Sind in 658 H., and was still holding
it when this history was brought toa conclusion, and where the dominions of the
Karlugh lay will be found in the following statement, and likewise the proof
respecting ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan's still holding Sind and
Multan also.

312

860 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

part of Ulugh Khan, to give an answer on the subject, and
his consent to the connexion. He, accordingly, directed
one of the middle rank among his retinue to bear the
answer to this request, and that bearer, a Khalj, they used
to style by the name of the Hajib-i-Ajall [the most worthy
Chamberlain], Jamal-ud-Din, ’Ali.

On this Khalj being nominated to this important matter,
he obtained from the royal revenue department an order
for a number of captives, on account of unavoidable neces-
saries, and the expenses of the road,’ and to enable him to
get over his journey. When he set out upon the road, at
the different stations and stages, the toll-collectors, on the
way, continued to demand of him and expect payment of
the established tolls and fixed cesses, and the Hajib, ’Alh,
continued, in this manner, to repudiate them [saying] : “I
am an agent [and therefore exempt ].”

By the time he had got over the stages and stations
within the kingdom [of Dihli] and reached the territory of
Sind, the report of his being on a mission became public ;
and, when he passed on to Multan, and from thence to
Uchchah, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khan, com-
manded that he should be summoned.’ So they summoned
the Hajib, ’Ali, and detained him,” and demanded of him the
letters he was bearing, that they might become acquainted
with the nature, import,and contents of the documents. The
Hajib, ’Ali, denied his mission; but, when the affair assumed
severity, on being constrained, he avowed, in the presence
of the Mughal Shahnag4n [Intendants]*: “I am an Emis-

This Nagir-ud Din, Muhammad, the Karlugh, is the same who presented
himself to Sulfin Ragiyyat when in the Panjab in 637 H., and was probably
personally known to Ulugh Khan. See page 644, and note?

9 These slaves or captives must have been given him for the purpose of
being sold to provide for the expenses of his journey as occasion required, after
the same fashion as our author obtained a grant of forty head to send to his
«५ dear sister” in Khurasan. These captives could have been of no other use
to him, and the object is evident

TAVERNIER Says, respecting an ambassador of the king of Mingrelia whom
he saw at Constantinople when he was there, ^. The first time of his audience,
he had a train of above 200 persons. But every day he sold tivo or three to
defray his expenses.”

1 See note *, preceding page

2 The Calcutta Printed Text has sJs!,.—chastizing, &c., instead of s&1p<-—
delaying, postponing, and the like

3 The word is in the plural here—,s* This conduct on the part of

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN तोति). 86%

sary, and I am going upwards.” Having, in the presence
of that assembly ^ made such a statement, Malik ’Izz-ud-
Din, Balban-i-Kashli-Khan, as a matter of necessity, gave
over requiring aught from him, and said: “ It is necessary ©
for thee to proceed, that I may have thee taken to thy
place of destination.” The Hayjib, ’Ali, replied: “My
orders are on this wise, that I should proceed to the pre-
sence of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Hasan the
Karlugh,” and, consequently, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban,
was under the necessity of allowing him to proceed in the
direction indicated.

When the Hajib, ’Ali, reached the ९८4 [district or
country] of Banian, the report of his coming from the
borders of Dihli, on a mission, having become published
and disseminated among the Mughal Shahnagan [Inten-
dants], and the gentle and simple of that territory, Malik
Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Hasan, the Karlugh, had
to send him, perforce ५, towards "Irak and Azarbaijan, to
the presence of Hula’i, the Mughal, and he [Malik Nasir-ud-
Din, Muhammad, son of Hasan], of his own accord, and
without the sanction of this Court [the Court of Dihli],
indited letters as from the dear tongue‘of Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam, and, sending some small present along with the
Hajib, ’Ali, despatched him along with confidential persons
of his own.

On arriving in the neighbourhood of the Irak territory,
they reached Hula’i’s presence in the city of Tabriz of
Azarbaijan. Hula’i treated the Hajib, ’Ali, with much
honour, and showed him great consideration. At the time
they desired to read out the letters unto Hula’i, the Ac-
cursed, it became necessary to translate them from the
Persian into the Mughali language. Inthe letters they had
written the name of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, ‘ Maks,’ for the
Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, shows that he had thrown off all
dependence on the Court of Dihlf, but he does not appear to have benefited
much from so doing, as he was now a mere vassal of the Mughals.

4 The word webe is used here, with reference to the Mughal Shahnagin,
and shows that Malik Balban-i-Kashlii Khan must have had several—more
than one, at least —of the Mughal Intendants to take care of him.

° Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mubammad, also, had been obliged to succumb to
the Mughals, and receive their Shahnagin. He will be referred to again.

These last three paragraphs prove how erroneous is Mr. Thomas’s statement,
mentioned in note ४, page 859.

862 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

custom of Turkistan is this, that there is but one supreme
ruler, no more, and him they do not style Malik, but
KHAN, and all others have the name of Maiik*®. So,when
they read out the letters to Hula’, the Mughal, he said :
“Why have ye given an equivalent for the name Ulugh
Khan ? it behoveth that his designation of Khan be pre-
served.” Such honour and respect did he esteem fit to
show towards Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam. Every person of the
Khians of the countries of Hind and Sind, who proceeded
to the presence of the Khans and rulers of the Mughals,
they altered the title of, and styled them all simply
‘ Malik, with this exception of the name of Ulugh Khan-i-
A’zam which they recognized as it originally stood. This
is one, among the proofs of the Divine grace, that both
friend and foe, believer and unbeliever, mention his august
name with veneration :—' This is the grace of God which
He bestows on whomsoever He pleaseth ; and God is the
possessor of great grace’.”

When the Hajib, ’Ali, was dismissed, on his return, the
Shahnah [Intendant] of the £4z¢tah [territory] of Bantan,
who was the son*® of Amir Yagh-rash’, a famous person,
and a respected Musalman, was nominated by Hula’t to
accompany him, and Hula’t sent orders to the Mughal
forces which would be under the standard of Sari [Sali],
the Ni-in, saying: “If the hoof of a horse of your troops
shall have entered the ground of the dominions of the
Sultan of Sultans, Nasir-ud-Dunya4 wa ud-Din, Mahmud
Shah—God perpetuate his reign!’—the command unto

¢ The Calcutta Printed Text is a mere jumble of words here.

7 Kur’AN: chap. lvii. verse 21. ।

9 Why then is his name not given as well as his fathers? The Mughal
troops had, at this time, been nearly three years—from the end of 655 H.—on
the western frontier of the Dihli kingdom, and this fact does not speak much
for its power. Perhaps internal dissension prevented vigorous measures being
taken against them. For what purpose this person came to Dihli does not
appear, unless it was to inform the Sultan of Sulfans, that, out of respect for
Ulugh Khan, his troops had been directed not to molest the narrowed frontier
on the Biah.

9 This name is somewhat uncertain, and may possibly be Bagh-ragh. It is
written 3,4: as above in three copies, including two of the oldest, and in
others usm) Use and ९४

1 We may scarcely suppose that our author wishes us to believe that these
are the exact words of Hulakii Khan’s order.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 863

you is this, that all four feet of such horse be lopped off.”
Such like security did the Most High God miraculously
vouchsafe unto the kingdom of Hindistan through the

felicity attending the rectitude of the Ulugh-Khani
counsels.

When the emissaries reached the capital, the sovereign
of Islam, in requital and return for that honour which
Hula’, the Mughal, had been pleased to show towards the
Hajib of this Court’, conformable with the saying, “ Verily
the reward of kindness should be nought save kindness ”—
great favour was lavished upon his emissaries likewise.
This [which has been related] was the reason of the
arrival of the emissaries of Khurasan and the troops? of
Turkistan.

May the Most High God long preserve the Sultan of
Islam, NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, ABO-L-MUZAFFAR-
I-MAHMUD SHAH, upon the throne of sovereignty, and the
prosperity of the Khakan-i-Mu’-azzam, Ulugh Khin-i-
A’zam, in successive increase and augmentation, for the
sake of Muhammad and his posterity !

> At page 860, he is said to have been a Hajib of Ulugh Khian’s own
household. No doubt, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahbmiid Shah, was acquainted with
the matter of this proposed alliance from the outset.

> This remark is unintelligible save as referring to a retinue or escort
accompanying this nameless person, the son of the Shahnah of Banian, and
the other nameless persons who accompanied him. The word used is 4!
signifying an army, a body of troops, large or small. As to emissaries, there
is only one mentioned here—the person above referred to, but, in the account
of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, our author states that he
despatched his own agents along with the Mughal Shahnah [at page 860 the
plural is used—Shahnagan] of Sind, on account of the Mughal army being on
the Dihli frontier, to the Sultin’s presence. Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, the
Karlugh, in all probability, also despatched an emissary of his own with
Ulugh Khan’s Hajib. Our author is either very reticent or appears not to
have known the upshot of these matters when he finished this work, for he
says, at page 786, ‘‘ Please God it may turn out well and advantageously.”
It is also plainly apparent that both Malik Balban-i-Kashli Khan and Nasir-
ud-Din, Muhammad, the Karlugh, could not act independently, and that
their Mughal Shahnahs must have had the control of their affairs.

It is much to be regretted that our author has not given us more particulars
respecting these events, and particularly of the last six years of the reign of
Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah. It would have been interesting to have known
the upshot of Malik Balban-i-Kaghlii Khan’s career, and whether the matri-
monial alliance took place between the son of Ulugh Khan, and the Karlugh
chief’s daughter, and many other interesting matters, which are not to be
found in any subsequent writer.

864 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

We have again returned to our history, and the last of
the events thereof is this, that Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam,
having carried out, after the manner [before related], holy-
war upon the infidels of the Koh-payah with such condign
severity, a large number of the remainder of the kinsmen
of those rebels, who, previous to that, had escaped from
the neighbourhood of the Koh-payah from the hand of the
troops and defenders of Islam—may victory ever attend
them !—and fled into different parts, and, by great strata-
gems, had managed to preserve their abominable lives
under the protection of flight from the keen swords of the
retainers of Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam’s house, began, a second
time, to renew their sedition, and commenced to infest the
roads and to shed the blood of Musalmfans, and, by reason
of the violence of that gathering, the roads were perilous.
This fact being brought to the august hearing of Ulugh
Khian-i-A’zam, he despatched intelligencers, informers, and
spies, so that they reconnoitred the remaining positions of
the rebels, and made thorough inquiry as to the present
whereabouts of those vagabonds. On Monday, the 24th
of the month of Rajab, 658 ए, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam,
mounted with his own following, the forces of [the con-
tingents composing] the centre [division], and other troops of
the Maliks and warriors, issued from Dihli and pushed on
towards the Koh-payah, in suchwise that, in one march,
he proceeded about fifty 4uroh or more‘, came unex-
pectedly upon that gathering, captured the whole of them,
and put about 12,000 persons, consisting of men and
women, and their children, to the sword. All the passes,
defiles, and the crests of the hills, were purified of the
bodies of the rebels by the wounds of the swords of the
Auxiliaries of the Truth, and much booty was captured.
Praise be unto God for this victory of Islam, and honour
to its votaries !

This much, which had been witnessed of that dynasty
by the aufhor, came under the pen of sincerity—from

4 There is not a word about € in the whole text. Fifty Aurok is not a very
astonishing distance for a forced march of cavalry, and is not more wonderful
than the previous one of the same distance mentioned at page 851. Compare
ELLIOT, page 383.

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 865

readers and examiners he is hopeful of benediction, and,
from the possessors of dominion, hopeful of honour, that
which is hoped for through God the Beneficent, and that
asked for through God the Merciful—in the month of
Shawwéal®, in the year 658 प्त. |

Praise be unto God, and blessings upon His Prophet,
and progeny, and his companions all, through Thy mercy,
O Thou Most Merciful of the Merciful !

+ Shawwil is the tenth month. In the account of Malik Nusrat-ud-Din,
Sher Khin-i-Sunkar, page 799, he states that he finished it in Rajab, the
seventh month.

ADDITIONAL NoTE.—As I am unacquainted with the Turkish language
Mr. Arthur Grote was kind enough to refer, at my suggestion, a List of the
less known Turkish titles and names occurring in this and the preceding Sec-
tions, but in this one more particularly, with the various readings and the
names pointed, as in the very old MS. of our author’s work in my possession,
to Professor A. Vambéry, to ask him if he could submit them to some Turkish
scholar for elucidation. In reply, the Professor himself has been so good as
to supply the following explanations ; but, while tendering to that gentleman
my best thanks for the trouble he has taken, I fear I cannot possibly adopt his
solutions of the difficulty, with two or three exceptions, for reasons here
mentioned :— |

Page 720- = al—‘‘(Ulug ८९) the great blessed, can be taken as a
proper name as well as for an attribute paid generally to princes. To €
corresponds the Arab &,\ and Mongol Oldjaitu.”

The Professor seems to read £ —g4—as simple J—p—which is not correct.
Of the meaning of Ulugh there ~ was no doubt.

Page 722—e;S—‘‘ Judging by the subsequent ८४ is a proper name, and is
probably instead of elle’ hiiajltik =the mighty, the powerful. elS can only
signify a knife, in 4g [2] dialect.” -

There was no doubt of its being a name or title, but, in the majority of
copies collated, it is written with ;—zz, not with z, or with क.

Page 722—"‘ yll—dalaban, a bird of prey, a much used proper name.”

The word in ae 15 yk—not ७८४ which does not occur in any work I
have ever met wi

Page 725—'‘ (1, ७४ ~S—an erroneous transcription of (jX%.—ming-
kirti = he broke, annihilated thousands. (2) (5 <.—mengzeti = he was like.
(Instead of mangiti [sic in MS.]) ; of the tribe of ct.—mangit.”

As the name is not written with ¢—/—it cannot possibly refer to any tribe
called ‘Mangit’ The second defi पिप is nearer the mark—but not with two
&’s—and that reading, viz.— <+ was given in my List. It is by no means
improbable, although it only occurs in one of the copies of the text collated,
that the fifth consonant should be «= instead of 2 — a mistake which is very
liable to arise, and, from what our author himself states at page 725, that he

349

866 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.

was styled Ayaz-i-Hazar-Mardah, that is Ayaz [in prowess] equal to a thousand
men, the first signification is not inapplicable.

Page 727—‘‘ o\ for -tci—yifim = a youngster, a lad?”
This definition will certainly not apply to the person in question.

Pages 513, 729, &c.—‘* Gy! for eydek, iydck, also २८२९ decidedly the name
of a bird (swan, 4ookoo, the Arab 5S and Osmanli—_ 295 Usyle = chaush kushu)
frequently used as a nickname in older Turkish writings,”

From the way the word is pointed it cannot be read otherwise than I-bak,
which is fully described in some of the best lexicons as a Turki word, with the
definitions I have given to it at pages 513 and 729, and is frequently used in
Persian Histories, as our author’s work shows. What will Mr. Blochmann
say to the above definition? Fancy Kutb-ud-Din, the Swan! The Arabic
— 5 S—Auki, signifies the cooing of a dove, not a swan.

Page 732-- g.—instead of | b—/aishi = a writer, a secretary. It isa
Chinese word, and occurs in Vassaf’s and Sherefeddin’s works.”

Since note 9, page 732, was written, I find the word _2Sb—Ta-ighi—
repeated! oe in the History of Amir Timi, the Girgan. Abi-1-Ghazi,
Bahadur Khan, in his Shajarah-ul-Atrak, says a man possessing a fine voice is
so styled, and Vambéry says it is Chinese for a writer, but he has evidently
confounded it with the Turkish word Bitik-chi, which bears that signification.
There cannot be any doubt of its being a Turkish word, and it is undoubtedly
a title of rank. It is therefore clear that the words in the text—j~&b and
g-fS—are meant for (d G—Ta-ishi. The only difficulty in adopting this
solution of the matter is, that a Turk of that rank should have been in a state
of bondage ; but he may have been taken captive in some of the constant feuds
between the Turks of the Tattar and Mughal i-maks, and sold as a slave.

Page 73I—c) yle—Yughan-Tat—This title the Professor defines thus :—
«५ 25 y\—instead of aygan tat = the named foreigner.”

The above definition is wholly out of the question with respect to Saif-ud-
Din, I-bak, who received the title of Yughan-Tat, on account of, or, after his
capturing several elephants in Bang.

Page 761—‘‘ J sb— 7264८ = a proper name, not the righteous as hitherto
believed, but ‘foghraul = the breaker, from fogkramak = to put m
pieces.”

Here the Professor writes $ correctly with g&; but the definition of this
well known word, which depénds upon the pointing, is thus described in a
very ory work before referred to :—‘‘Spelt ^ Tughrul,’ it signifies a
species of the falcon tribe used in the chase ”—and, as plainly indicated by our
author farther on, page 936, with reference to the Awang Khan—‘‘and ‘Tughril,’
the name of a man,’ which may signify ‘‘the breaker.” Moreover one noble
is named Tughril-i-Tughan Khan. See page 743.

Page 742—‘ ye 4) yld—Either a displacement of gle old p35 Temir kiran
khan = the iron-breaking Khan, or temir who defeated Kamreddin.”

The Iron [like] Khan would be appropriate, and the word ‘famusr—iron—
has already been described at page 742.

Page 746—"' 4h! ७८ sli—Aara hash khan aytkin = the man named

THE SHAMSIAH MALIKS IN HIND. 867

Kara kash khan. Xara hash = black eyebrow, is a frequently-used proper

name.”

Undoubtedly it is the name of a man, and may mean the Black-eyebrowed,
a does Aet-kin mean? The former is also written (> |s—Kara
- Page 748—‘* a,3g2|—instead of ८५०५ y33!—al/tun yay [yahi ?] = the golden bow.”
Ikhtiyar-ud-Din of the Golden bow is not inapplicable, but the word signi-
fying gold is written either asl or ol with long =,
Page 752—‘‘ ita—sonkar, shonkar = a bird of prey, a hawk.”
Sunkar, as it is written, on the authority before referred to, which gives the
meanings of some—but not all, I regret to say—Turki words, signifies a

black-eyed falcon of a particular species. See note ^ to the page above
referred ६३.

Page 754—‘‘ jt3—fabak/uk =the gross, the thick ; or a mistake of the
copyist instead of £ud/uk = ९, "”

The word in the majority of the copies of the text collated has jlig—hik-/nk,
with the vowel points, but two copies have certainly पदर, and the first meaning
assigned to it is not inapplicable, i. €, Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar, the Stout or
Gross. The Professor previously said that ket/ug meant &,५- !

Page 756—“ ७५ rs—Korit khan: a title =the prince of Kerit, a known
Turkish tribe.”

This I look upon as wholly inadmissible, because the ८ —
tribe—not ५4४ certainly—so famous in the eee | of the Mughals, as will be
found farther on, was a purely Mughal tribe, and Karayat signifies dark or
swarthy. The Malik referred to at page 756 was a Turk, and not of the
Mughal I-mak.

Page 673—“ ७५.2५] नए ella—The incomprehensible part is न and here I
suppose it to be an orthographical mistake fur —yisitim = my champion, a
hero.”

The word may possibly be .% as a single point makes all the difference,
but it might, after the same Facer be meant for (प or र and the like,
but the next question is, 25 ,91 is not translated with it, whether ‘‘ my cham-
pion” is possible or not : I rather think it is not.

Page 775—‘ JS yll—dalaban heshii or keshili = of the tribe Balaban.
Keshi [or 2] 4ishi means a person, an individual, but £esh/s [sec in MS.] or
kishili, £ preceded by a proper name, signifies a man of. Thus Uigur kishili
= 9 man of the Uigur tribe; Ja/eban dishili = a man of the Balaban
tribe.”

Unfortunately for these definitions the word I submitted was y-)—dalaban :
not yl»—dalaban, and this latter word has already been stated to mean ^^
bird of prey, a much-used proper name.” Since these words were submitted
to the learned Professor, I have found, beyond a doubt, according to my
authorities, as will be found farther on, that Kashli Khan is a title, and it is
said, in the history of the Mughals, that Koshlak Khan, the Naeman, was
entitled Kashli and Kashli Khan, which title is said to be the same in significa-
tion as Koshlak, who is also called Kojlak Khan. ‘‘A man of” therefore is
entirely out of the question for Kashli here, at least.

Page 831—‘‘Glee—rock. Glee = a block, a hatchet. Gle li—ara
chumak = the black hatchet, a proper name.”

This rendering is not improbable, and not unlike many other Turkish nick-
names, but between a d/ock and a Aatcheé there is a great difference except

868 ` THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

when they come together. In the work I have before alluded to ज.
Chumak fin the text it is jle—Jamak] is described as an iron mace of six

points or divisions

From the above result, I fear that a satisfactory solution of the correct
significations of these titles and names, with the few exceptions referred to, must
remain in abeyance until some good Dictionary of the old Turkish language

shall be forthcoming.

SECTION XXIIL

THE AFFAIRS OF ISLAM, AND IRRUPTION OF THE
INFIDELS.

a

[As our author relates here the various prophecies respect-
ing the end of the world, of which the irruption of the
Mughals was one of the chief indications, I need scarcely
follow him, since the world has not yet come to an end,
although more than six centuries have elapsed since he fore-
told it, and closed his history, and, therefore, I may pass
over these matters altogether, and begin where he com-
mences his relation of events.]*

Notwithstanding that, by the will of the Almighty, and
the decrees of Destiny, the turn of sovereignty passed unto
the Chingiz Khan >, the Accursed, and his descendants, after

1 This is, perhaps, .the most interesting portion of our author’s work ; and it
contains much information not hitherto known, and many important particulars
respecting the Panjab, Sind, and Hindiistan, and throws additional light on
other events mentioned in the preceding Sections. This highly important por-
tion has not been given at all by ELLior in the extracts from our author’s
work contained in the second vol. of his ‘* Historians of India.”

> Chingiz or Chingiz Khan signifies ‘‘ THE GREAT KHAN,” and therefore,
although apparently pedantic, that is the correct mode of writing his title, which
will be explained farther on.

I did not intend to give an account of the descendants of Yafis, son of
Nib, but, perhaps, it will be well to do so, since many persons appear to
entertain very erroneous ideas respecting Turks, Tattars, and Mughals, and
respecting their correct names, and as our author here has also made some
errors respecting the last-named people. I shall be as brief as possible ; but I
fear that, in giving this account, I shall seriously interfere with some people’s
theories on the subject.

This account is taken from several histories which I will name, in order that
I may not have constantly to quote them, viz. :—’Abd-ullah bin Khurdad-bih,
Tarikh-i-Fandkatf, Jami’-ut-Tawarikh of the Wazfr, Rashid-ud-Din, Tarikh-
1-Ghazini, Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir, Tarikh-i-Alfi, Shajarah-ul-Atrak, Mujmal-i-
Fasib-i, Tarikh-i-Yafa-t, Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Tarikh-i-Jahin-Kushie of the
Jiwaini, Tarikh-i-Jahan-Ara, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, -Mun-
takhab-ut-Tawarikh, Rauzat-us-Safa, Habib-us-Siyar, Majami’-ul-Khiyar,

Tarikh-i-Abi-1-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, and the Akbar-Namah, the last of

870 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the kings of I-ran and Tiiran, that the whole of the land of

which works contains the history of the Mughals more for the purpose of
glorifying the author’s master than anything else, as I shall presently show.

I. YAFIs, son of N&h, from whom the Turks and all their ramifications
claim descent, after coming out of the ark with his father, is said to have been
sent, by him, into the farther east, and to have fixed his y#va¢ or encampment,
and to have pitched his tent, at a place written in the original— ls Kp
which is somewhat doubtful, in the vicinity of the rivers Atil—Ji{[—the
Wolga, which rises in the country of Riis and Bulghar—and Jaik—eh He
received from his father the famous stone which possessed the virtue of pro-
ducing rain and other blessings, which stone the Turks call yadah-tdsh, the
*Ajamis, sang-i-yadah, and the ’Arabs Aajar-al-matar—the rain-producing
stone.

In after-times the descendants of Yafig casting lots for the possession of this
miraculous stone, the Ghuzz, hereafter to be mentioned, are said to have made
an imitation of it, and the Khalj tribe won the false stone, while the Ghuz
secured the real one. The author of the Habib-us-Siyar says it was pre-
served among the Uzbaks and Mughals, and possessed the same virtues when
he wrote!

Yafis had eight sons:—1. Turk—o#,;—2. Chin—..=— 3. Khurz—;,s—4. Sak-
Hb— »kt.—[also Saklaib], 5. Riis—U-3—[an ’Usmanli Turkish author, who
lately published a work at Paris, very correctly, contends—according to the
historians previously quoted, among whom the Fanakati says his work contains
what the Sages, Astronomers, and Chroniclers of the I-ghirs, the people of
Tibbat, and the tribes of the Turks relate in their chronicles—that the Russians
are not Sclaves—i.e. Saklabs. See also Mascou’s History of the Germans,
vol, ii. page 615]. 6. Mang—e. also written Mansag—o. Manj— € and
Manshij— £~ 7. Taraj—_, also written Tarakh—», Barakh—o 5h and
even Marakh—gy- from the fourth son of whom is descended Sikandar-i-
Zi-l-Karnain, not the Macedonian. 8, Gumiari— 5,45 [Gomer] also styled,
by some of the writers quoted, Kimal or Gimal—J&S and Gimal or Kimal—
JUS and Gimial or Kimial—JleS [I may repeat here that I always put the
most trustworthy names frs/, in all instances}. Some of these writers, and
also the author of the Jami’-i--Ugm, add the names of three more sons—
Khalj— ही —Ghuzz——and Sadsén—,.o. but the two first mentioned
cannot एह sons of # 205, from what these writers themselves subsequently state
respecting the origin of their names, presently to be noticed.

Some of the authorities mention the confusion of tongues, which necessitated
the eight sons of ४205 separating, and they are mentioned as taking up their
residence, with their families, in different parts of what they call Turkistan, and
which, subsequently, were called after their respective names ; but the others
state that Nuh sent Yafig into the farther east, into Tiiradn.

II. Turk, the eldest son of Yafis, son of Nih, took up his residence in
that pleasant locality famous for its hot and cold springs, which the Turks call
Salingde—GL.—and Salingae— ..—which is also written Issi-Kol—JS (41
—Si-Kol—J,%—by some writers, Lut which, as subsequently explained, refers
to the parts about Issik-Kol—J 5 5~'—or Issigh- Kol—JS 4e:'—or Issigh-Kol
— JS @entl—J and € being interchangeable.

According to ’Abd-ullah-i-Khurdad-bih, and Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan,
‘*Salingae lies round about Issigh-Kol, which is a little sea, or great lake,
seven days’ journey in extent [about 120 miles long], surrounded by mountains,

_IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 871

Tiiran and the East fell under the sway of the Mughals,

and into which seventy rivers fall, but the lake is salt, and some say the water
is warm.”

Chin, son of Yafig, was very clever, and inventive, and among other things
invented by him was the custom of winding silk [from the cocoon], and weaving
silken textures. He had ason whom he named Ma-Chin, who was exceedingly
wise. When the latter’s family became numerous, he said to his father that he
would construct a place of abode for himself, and he founded the city of M&-
Chin. He acquired the jade stone, and discovered its properties and virtues,
and made it known to his people, and he also took musk from the musk-deer.

Khurz, son of Yafis, was very mild, tractable, and taciturn, and, having
roamed about in all directions, at length fixed his residence by the bank of the
river Atil—Ji{ In the summer season he dwelt [with his family] in the open
country, and, in winter, in a town [ 4~}-—a fixed habitation, probably.

Saklab, son of Yafis, made some request to the chief of his «/#s or tribe

—one writer says, to Gumari, Khurz, and Riis, to be allowed to dwell with
them—which was not granted, and, on this account, enmity arose between
them. Others say, that the descendants of Saklab, having become much more
numerous than the others, came to a fight with their kinsmen, but, being
worsted, took up their residence in more distant parts, farther west, beyond the
seventh clime, where the cold is great. They appear to have not only made
up their feud in these latter days, A.D. 1876, but also, for political purposes, to
have merged into one people. ’Abd-ullah-i-Khurdad-bih calls him Sag-lab—
५४ el.—and says that he was suckled by a bitch, hence the name, and which,
if true, may account for the very Christian-like proclivities manifested lately
by his simple-minded ‘‘ Christian” descendants, so-called, in cutting off ears,
lips, noses, and heads, and otherwise mutilating their dead foes, a very dog-like
disposition. They—the S’avs of European writers—are notorious for such-like
acts, as Tacitus and Procopius testify.
, Riis, son of Yafig, is the ancestor of the Riisfans [Russians]. Being held
in little account, and without sufficient means, he continued, for some time, to
dwell along with Saklab, but, subsequently, left him. Among the descendants
of Ris the custom prevails of giving the parents’ whole inheritance to the
daughters, and nothing but a sword to the sons.

Mang, or Mansag, son of ४205, was full of deceit and artifice, and he
took up his dwelling on the side of Bulghar. There is the land of the Ghuzz,
and the whole of that race are his descendants, from his son, named Ghuzz ;
and they are the worst of the descendants of Yafig. Some few writers say
‘“the worst of the Turks,” but to be Turks they must have been descended
from Turk, which does not appear to have been the case. After the decease
of ४298, Mansag managed to get possession of the rain-stone, and it remained
with the Ghuzz, but, on one occasion, when Turk required it to bring rain,
he sent and demanded the stone from them. They substituted a false one and
sent it, which being discovered, strife arose, and numbers of the Ghuzz family
were killed in consequence, and, from that time, enmity has continued between
the Turks and Turk-mans. [See under Aghiz, farther on, for the origin of
this name.] Gbhuzz’s eldest son was killed in this affair. He was named
Beghti—y4 which is also written Beghiin—»4—the » being nasal, and
hence the Turk-mins style themselves Beghii. See note °, page 374, and
note °, page 433.

Gumiri [Gomer of European historians who is also called Kimal or Gimal

872 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and that the authority of the Muhammadan religion de-

and Kiman or Giman and Gimial, &c., as previously stated], son of Yafis, was
addicted to pleasure and jollity, and passionately fond of the chase ; and he
took up his residence in the part which is known as Bulghar. He had two
sons :—I. Bulghar, and 2. Bartas, and the Mashkriiian—,,\,)i+l.— probably,
the Bashghriian or Bashkritan— by a+b or ८८५३. ८५- {धि Bashkirs ?] are of
their seed. Barts took up his quarters on the side of Bulghar, and the taking
of furs is attributed to him. Bulghar is the ancestor of the Bulghars, vul.
Bulgarians, and therefore are not Saklabs [Slavs].

Some historians are of opinion that the Yinanian, and Riimfan [Tonians and
Romans], are descended from Gumiarf, otherwise Kimal or Gimil, and that
Ya-jij and M&-jiij [Gog and Ma-gog]—who, probably, are the ancestors of the
Samoydes—were likewise sons of Gumarf.

No account whatever is given of the eighth son of Yafigs—Taraj, Tarakh, or
Barakh.

This is the genealogy of the descendants of Yafis, son of Nib, but, as such
numbers of tribes have sprung from them as cannot be easily enumerated, and,
as the object of the writers was merely to give an account of the Turks, they
do not chronicle much more respecting the other sons of Yafig, but concentrate
their attention on the movements of his eldest son, Turk.

Yafig, son of Nih, having died at the age of 250—some say 240—years,
Turk was chosen head of his people; and they styled him Yafis Ughlin,
or the Younger ४205, The vast tract of country, called Turkistan, takes its
name from him. He is said to have been contemporary with Gaii-murt, the
first of the Maliks of ’Ajam, and he was the first who was chosen Khan.
among the children of Yafis. The Jami’-i-’Ugm states that he succeeded to
the authority at a place named Silik—Jyl~

He had four sons:—1. Tiinak or Tiinag—e,}—but, according to some,
his name was Titag or Titak & 2. Jinkal—JGe—also written Jikal or
Jigal—J%&—and Chikal or Chigal—J%& [This latter name is still known,
and is now applied to a small tract of country], 3. Barsinjir—,\4~,—and
Barsinjiir—,@~» and 4. Amlak or Imlak— 5%! which may be written also
Amlagh or Imlagh—é%!

Tiinag, or Tiinak or Tiitak or Titag, took up his quarters on the banks of
the river Atil, but the dwelling places of the other brothers are not mentioned.

At this point considerable discrepancy occurs among the authors quoted,
respecting the successor of Turk, entitled Yafig Ughlan. With a single
exception they state that, when his end drew near, Turk made over the
chieftain-ship to his son, whom they styled Alminjah—.#!'|— Almfinjah—adel
—and Alinjah—s2'| In some works—Iljah—se?!|—Injah—s'!—and [ja
—l\gk| Turk, however, had no son so called, even by their own accounts,
for, as regards the names of his four sons, previously given, they all agree
except the Habib-us-Siyar, in some copies of which Turk is said to have had
five sons, of whom Alminjah—.4~'—was the eldest, but this, although
apparently correct from what follows, is contrary to every other work I have
named, except Abi-]-Ghazi’s, which again is different to all others. It 5
possible that Alminjah was a grandson of Turk, and son of one of the four
named above.

Abi-1-Ghizf, Bahadur Khan, states, that ‘‘ Turk, at his death, bequeathed
his sovereignty to his son Tiinak ” [Tiitak or Tiitag, previously mentioned],
and that ‘‘Tiinak [ली the sovereignty to Jalzah [7 sje], his son.” This

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 873

parted from those regions, which became the seat of

Jalzah may be meant for Alinjah or the like, but I must mention that Abi-1-
Ghazi is the most modern of all the authors I have referred to, he having only
begun his History in 1074 H. = 1663 A.D., and that, in one place in his work,
he states that he himself copied from other authors what is contained therein
down to the time of his ancestor Shaibani Khan, the contemporary and enemy
of Babar. Those authors must have been some of those whose works I have
already named; but Abi-l-Ghazi differs from them essentially, and can
scarcely be considered a better authority than those who centuries previously
compiled the history of the descendants of ४208 by command of Mughal
sovereigns, and from the best authorities.

For the above reasons I must assume that Turk was succeeded by his
grandson, Alminjah or Alinjah, possibly the son of Titag or Tinag.

II, ALMINJAH—ad~!—or ALINJAH— af)|—having succeeded, during his
chieftain-ship the whole of the Turk tribes forsook the true faith [of their
ancestor Yafig] and turned pagans. When he became stricken in years he
resigned the chieftain-ship to his son, Dib-bakie.

IV. D1s-BAKUE— s95ho—also written Dib-badkiie—.¢5ol.o— Diba-kin—
८११८२ शात Dib-yakin—,gb W2s—and Dib-baiikiie— sg,.s— the son of
Alminjah or Alinjah, succeeded his father, and, in his chieftain-ship, all the
Turks took the road of error and perversity. 4 signifies throne, grandeur,
possession, and ८८८८, great, venerable, and the like. He had four sons.

V. KiwAK—o,S—also written Kiwak-—o&,5—by some, Kyik, and by
two authors Kir, or Gir—,S—another son of Alminjah or Alinjah, but,
according to some, his eldest son, succeeded to the chieftain-ship over the Turks.
He became an idol-worshipper according to the Fanakati, who then makes a
sudden leap to Aghiiz Khan who does not belong to this dynasty at all.
Others state however that Kiwak did not deviate from the just and virtuous
path of his forefathers.

VI. I now come to a period respecting which all the authors named, with a
single exception, to be referred to presently, agree, namely, that wherein Kiwak
was succeeded by his son, ALINJAH—s|—Khin, during whose chieftain-ship
his people, filled with arrogance at their prosperity and flourishing condition,
continued to fall deeper into darkness and perversity until they all became
infidels. After a considerable time, two sons were born to him at one birth,
tothe eldest of whom he gave the name of Tattar—,44—and to the second
the name of Mughal— J which is also written Mughil — Jy — and
Mighil—J,é..—but Mongol is wholly erroneous: I cannot imagine how it
ever came to be adopted. When Alinjah became old and infirm, and his two
sons had grown up, he divided his territory between them, giving to each a
half, and retired from the world. The two brothers appear to have ruled
jointly, and in harmony, for some time, but, eventually, separation took place
between them, and two septs or tribes arose, which authors call by the
Turkish words I-mak — ७. - I-magh — glen! — and Ui-mak — jlo! — or
Ui-magh— lu!

It may be well to mention another matter which occurs to me here, and,
although it is not a necessary or very material part of the present subject, it
can scarcely be deemed foreign to it. ।

Those Turks—Tattars, and Mughals—who occupy at present the old seats
of the Tajzik Ghiris, between Hirit, Kabul, and Kandahar [‘‘the A/ghans
of Ghore” as they were wont, until very lately, improperly to be styled, and
who are said to have ‘‘founded the ‘pre-Mughal’ (क dynasty of Hin-

3K

874 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

paganism, the kingdom of Hindiistan, by the grace of

dostan””], to whom ELPHINSTONE refers in his ९ Account of Casedsel,” under
the name of ‘‘Eimauks,” still style themselves ‘‘ Chahar [Four] /- mdé er
Ui-mak,” after the same Turkish words as given above, they having been गा.
ginally four tribes of those people, and the people now styled Hazarahs—which
word is not a proper name but derived from Aazdr, a thousand, the name
given by the Mughal rulers to bodies of 1000 men, but these so-called Aasarahs
often contained many more, even 4 and 5000. One or more bodies of these
troops were, with their families, stationed in those parts—once exceedingly
flourishing and populous—after their conquest by the Mughals, subsequent to
which period likewise the Chahar I-mak were settled therein. One of the
former was the Hazarah of the Ni-yin, Mukah, a Karayat Mughal, who with
his «is, was sent to reside on the frontiers of Khurasin, and occupied the tracts
extending from the limits of Balkh to Badghais of Hirat. They were not the
first, however, for, long prior to the time of the Turkish rulers of Ghaznin, we
find Turkish tribes settling in the N. W. parts of that tract of country which is
called Afghanistan in later times, and in the parts between Kabul and
Peshawar, about the skirts of the Safed Koh. Elphinstone says, ‘‘ Their
features refer them at once to the Tartar stock, and a tradition declares
them to be the offspring of the Moguls (sic);” and, in a foot-note, he
adds :. ५९ find it difficult to account for the number of Toorkee words
which are met with in the language of those tribes. Why, if they be Moguls,
should they have spoken Toorkee ?

“* Toorkey,” 1 beg leave to observe, is the mode in which Dow and BRIGGS
thought proper to write the word Turki—_5j3—after the absurd elegancies of
a ‘‘pronouncing dictionary,” I suppose, or the Fonetic Nuz, and they appear
to have been under the impression that Turk and Turki referred solely to
the ’Usmanli (Ottoman) Turks and their language, and that they, accord-
ing to their supposition, were a totally different race from the children of the
son of Yafis, and so they invariably wrote the word, without any authority
whatever— Zoorkey—as if it were written in the original (29 with + which it
isnot. It will also be seen that Elphinstone’s difficulty was a self-made one,
and that the ^^ Moguls should have spoken Zoorkee” is not to be wondered at.
He also says [vol. ii. p. 222]: ‘‘the Moguls and Uzbeks”—for he seems to
have been unaware that the Uzbaks are Mughals in reality—‘‘compose what
we call the Tartar nation” ! The fact however is precisely the contrary

BABAR mentions these Chahar I-mak. He styles them respectively ‘‘ the
Turk I-mak,” ‘‘Hazirah Mughals,” ^^ Turk-mans,” and ‘‘Taimani [not
‘Tymuncee’] I-mak.” I have never come into contact with them myself or !
would have learned the correct names of their I-maks and their descent,
but, certainly, the Nikiidaris were included among them in former days
‘¢ Firiiz-kohi ” is a mere (०८८१ name.

I now return to the account of the two I-maks of Tattar and Mughal, and
commence with the eldest branch.

THE TATTAR I-MAK.

The chiefs or sovereigns of the Tattar I-mak consist of eight persons, the
first of whom was the eldest of the twin sons of Alinjah Khan

1. TATTAR KHAN—,|& ,G—son of Alinjah, ruled for a considerable time,
and was succeeded by his son,

1. BUKA KHAN—'y—also written, in some histories, Biki—,3.—wbo
was succeeded by his son,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 875

Almighty God, and the favour of fortune, under the shadow

III. AMINJAH—.#+l—and, by different authors, Alinjah—sé)!_Balinjah—
ad) —Malinjah—sd+—and without points—s¢’—which may be anything ; but
Abi-I1-Ghazi, contrary to all other writers, styles him Jalinzah [? sje]
He was succeeded by his son,

IV. I-LEY—,j:!—whom some style Ansi or Insf—_i!—and Isley—, J!
—and J! without diacritical points. Abi-l-Ghazi styles this ruler Itelah
[? 451]. He was succeeded by his son,

V. ATSIZ—j—j|—which is written in some of the works quoted Altir „9
and Astir +~! but they are evidently both intended for 751 which is a well-
known Turkish name. This however is a specimen of the manner in
which careless copyists, ignorant of the subject copied, make correct names
incorrect. Abii-l-Ghazf calls him Atasir or Atsir [? ,-1]. He was engaged
in wars, but against whom is not recorded. Hostility had probably already
arisen between the Tattar and Mughal I-maks

VI. Arpv or Urb 5) also written Ardah or Urdah १५) son of Atsiz,
succeeded to the authority, and, at his death, his son,

VII. BATDGU—»,. succeeded to the chieftain-ship,. He was much
superior to his predecessors in power and state. He marched his forces
against the I-mak or ९८7 of the Mughals, and hence commenced that in-
extinguishable hostility which has ever since existed between the two septs.
Abii-l-Ghazi says he died whilst war was going on against the Mughals.

VIII. SON) KHAN— Jy»—and by some styled SONDZ—;'».—son of
Baidu, succeeded ; but, béfore I say more concerning him, I must bring the
Mughal I-mak down to his time.

THE MUGHAL oR MuGHO1 I-MAk.

This I-mak was ruled over by nine persons, and from this circumstance the
number nine is held in great veneration by the Mughals. The first was,

1. MUGHAL—jJs—or Mughil—J,#—KHAN, second son of Alinjah, who
was a chieftain of great dignity. It must be remembered, however, that
nearly every one of the writers named at the head of this account wrote for, or
under the reigns of, the Mughal sovereigns, and, tonsequently, nothing good
is said of the Tattars. Mughal Khan had four sons:—1. Kara Khan—ls
2. Awar, Awur, or Aor Khian—, i 3. Kin Khan—.5 and, 4. Kur, or
Gur Khian—S—also written Kir or Gir—,5 With respect to the second
and fourth sons’ names, particularly with regard to the second, considerable
difference exists in these Histories. Some call him Azar or Agur—,3|—perhaps
Azar or Azur—,'—is meant, others, Awaz or Awuz—j,i—Awas or Awus

ueyi And the fourth son is called Kiiz, or Kawaz, Giz or Gawuz— 5S
and Kuz or Guz—s—&c., according to the vowel points, that may be used
with the word when not marked in the original.

Il. KarA KHAN, eldest son of Mughal Khan, succeeded his father, and, in
his time, most of the descendants of Turk were idol-worshippers, and but few
followed the faith of their ancestors. During his reign a movement took place
among his people, and he made subject the parts about Kara-Kuram, and
the tracts lying between those two lofty mountain ranges which they call
Ur-Tak—gs ,!—or Ur-Tak— 5 ,,!—and Kar-Tak—Gl_;—and some,
War-Tak— ls ,,—and Kar-Tak, or, as—G—4 is interchangeable with
—gh in Turkish words, it may be more correctly written Ur-Tagh or Ur-
Tagh, and Kar-T agh, or War-Tagh and Kar-Tagh— 7ag4, in Turkish, signi-
fying a range of mountains—and therein took up his yiéraf—encamping

3K 2

876 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of the guardianship of the Shamsi race, and the shade of

ground—and his 7-/ak or i-/dgh, or summer, and 4ish-lak or kesh-lagh, or
winter station. These terms are still used by the Chahar-I-mak in Afghanistan,
and even the Afghans have, during the course of time, adopted the terms from
them.

Abi-1-Ghiazi says ‘‘ those mountain ranges are now [in his time] called Ulugh-
Tagh—the high, great, over-topping mountains, and the Kizil-Tagh—the red
or ruddy mountains,” which are sufficiently delineated on all good maps, but
under various different names. Kara Khan’s 47shk-/ak, or winter quarters, was
generally at the foot of the mountains in about Lat. 40°, Long. 94° or 95°.
The name 4is:/—red—occurs constantly in the names Kizil-kol, Kizil-kum,
and the like. Another writer describes the country of the Mughal I-mak as
bounded E. by Khita, W. by the I-ghiir country, N. by Kirkir [which is
also written, by some, Kirkiz, and Kirkiz, but Mirza Haidar always writes it
Kira-kir—,3\5—which evidently refers to the country around the Kirkir Nor
of the Jesuits’ map; and the Tarikh-i-Alfi has Kirkir—js Mirza Haidar
does not refer to the tribe of Karghiz, which he always writes ;#3] and 5. by
Kharkhez Tungit—o 55 5

Kara Khan was a tyrannical and odious infidel, and greatly feared and
avoided. During his sovereignty he had a son born to him by his chief
Khitiin, who received the name of Aghiiz, which name refers to his refusal of
nourishment from his mother’s breast for three days and nights, according to
the Mughal tradition—but I have not space to detail it here—because she too
had become an infidel, the word Aghiiz being said to mean the sound of milk
taken from an ewe which has recently had young. It was usual among the
Mughals not to name their offspring until they were a year old; but Aghiz
turned out to be a most remarkable infant, and so he named himself, to the
surprise of his parents, who were consulting पला what name to give him,
crying out from his cradle: ^^ My name is Aghiiz.”

Aghiiz Khan grew up in the true faith, which his mother returned to, and his
father, Kara Khin, discovering this, resolved to put him to death, and to take
advantage of such time as Aghiiz should be following the diversion of hunting
in order to carry it out. Aghiiz was married, in succession, to three
daughters of his three uncles, one of whom adopted the true faith, and she
gave him intimation of his father’s design, and he, being in consequence joined
by numerous partisans, kept aloof from his father. At last, however, a con
flict ensued between the father and son, and Aghiz slew his parent. Abii-I-
Ghazi says the father ‘‘ was killed” during the rout of his followers.

Ill. AcuOz KHAN —;,¢i —also written AGHUz—;¢i—which is equally
correct, and by the Fanakati, UcH0z—j,¢,'!—having succeeded to the authority,
for a space of two or three years, but, according to some of the best of the

Histories this account is taken from, for seventy-two or seventy-three years
[seventeen years are more probable], waged war with his paternal and ma-
ternal uncles and other kinsmen and their dependents, and his own tribe, and,
at length, succeeded in compelling the greater part of them to return to the tme
faith, and those who would not he treated with the utmost rigour. His
uncles, however, with their dependents, and some of his father’s likewise, fled
from his territory farther to the east, to the borders of Chin, and sought pro-
tection from the Malik of the Tattar I-mak. He aided them with his forces,
and they marched against Aghiiz Khan, but, being filled with fear and terror
of him, they were put to the rout. Aghiiz Khin pursued them, and ९४८

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 877

the protection of the I-yal-timishi dynasty, became the

penetrated to the frontiers of Chin, and subdued part of that clime likewise.
How this will agree with the Chinese annals remains to be seen, but, as one
of his uncles was named Kin Khan, this may possibly account for the Kin—
who are styled ^. Kin Tartars,” but, perhaps, more correctly, should be Kin
Mughuls—in the farther east, who subsequently conquered Northern
China.

After this, such was his power, and the awe he was held in, that many ८
or tribes of the Tattar I-mak, as well as that of Mughal, became subject to
him. He also brought under his sway the city of Talagh, and Sairam or
Siram to the frontiers of Bukhara.

He adopted wise laws and regulations, and assigned names to several Turkish
tribes [i.e. his own Mughal I-mak and such of the Tattar I-mak as had
acknowledged his sway], by which names they are known still, such as I- ghir—
3gu'—{[an offshoot of Mughal Khian’s family] which signifies ‘‘coming to
one’s aid” and ‘‘ making a compact,” they having been the first to join him
when his father resolved to take his life; Kankuli—_Jiis—which is also
written Kainghuli—,j«5—and Kanghuli—, Jas—and Kankuli—_Jisj— which
means a wheeled-carriage or cart, which they, on a certain expedition, in-
vented, when the booty was so immense that there was difficulty in removing
it. They are still to be found on the banks of the Sihiin and parts adjacent.
Abi-!-Ghiazi says sankul— Ji s— signifies the creaking of a wheel ; Kabchak—
gis’—which is also written Khafchak—sls*—and Kafchak—j\,*—the
meaning of which, it is said, is derived from ७95 or J»#—signifying a tree
hollow in the trunk.

One of the conflicts in which Aghtz Khan was engaged was with Ayat, the
Burak, and A ghiiz was overthrown, and had to retire into a delta, but seven-
teen years after he finally overcame him.

There was with his forces, on that occasion, a pregnant woman—the
Mughals and Tattars used to take their wives with them in war—whose hus-
band had been killed in that affair, and, being taken in labour, she took shelter
within the trunk of a hollow tree which happened to be there, and gave birth
toason. Aghiiz, hearing of it, took pity on her, as her husband had been
slain in his defence, and adopted the boy, and gave him the name of Kabchak
because he was born in a hollow tree. When he grew up, Kabchak was sent
into the tract of country called Tamak, to guard that frontier, and it got the
name, in course of time, of dash¢ or plain of Kabchak.

The next to whom he assigned a name were the Karliks—5,!,6—also
és, ¥—Karligh—Karluk—35— and Karlugh—@,5—and the circumstance
which gave rise to it was this. Aghiz Khan, returning from an expe-
dition into the eastern parts of I-ran Zamin, was passing the borders of Ghir and
Gharjistan on his way back to Tirin. It was the depth of winter, and he
therefore commanded that his followers should not loiter on the line of march
because of the dangerous state of the route by reason of the frost and snow.
Some few of his followers however—men of one family—did loiter, and soon
found themselves unable to come up with the main body until a considerable
time afterwards—some say A ghiiz was on his way into I-ran Zamin, and that the
loiterers did not rejoin him until the following spring. After punishing them
he gave them the nick-name of Karligh, which word, in Turkish, according
to my authorities, signifies ‘‘the father of snow,” i. €, ‘‘ pertaining to snow,”
but here, ‘‘ detained by the snow,” which name their descendants, who formed

878 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

focus of the people of Islam, and orbit of the possessors of

a separate tribe of Turks, were ever after known by, and continue to be known
by up to this day. There is a couplet respecting them which is well known :—
म्‌» ०८ Joi Seal glee V5 AIS <~ gh Se ay
and they are continually mentioned in Oriental history, but European trans-
lators have transliterated the words és) ७ — Gb — als and 33— accord-
ing to their ideas of the value of the letters of the ’Arabic alphabet, and the
different languages in which they themselves wrote, and turned them into
Carlouks, Karliks, Corlucs, Carlugues, Carracs, Karluks, and the like,

whereby they are nearly unrecognizable.

Some of these simple Turks, who appeared on the N. W. frontier of the I-yal-
timishi kings of Dihli, subsequent to the irruption of the Mughals, have
been turned into ^^ Indo-Scythians '' by Major-General A. Cunningham. See
THomas, ‘‘ Pathan Kings,” p. 97. See also the theories on this name con-
tained in the Geographical Magazine for 1875, vol. ii. page 217, last para.

Aghiz Khin also named the Turk tribe of Khalj— g*— sometimes
pronounced Khalaj, in poetry—from the following circumstance. On one
of Aghiiz’s expeditions, the particulars of which are too long for insertion here,
some of his men fell out on the line of march, and remained behind. When
they came up with the army again, Aghiiz demanded the reason of their dis-
obeying his strict orders against loitering. One of them replied, although they
had been directed to take food with them sufficient for some days, that they
had stayed behind in search of it, and that, in his own case, he had to remain
because his wife was taken in labour, and, when the child came into the world
the mother, for want of nourishment, had no milk to give it. He had no food
to offer her ; when, looking about him, he espied, near by, a fox which had
caught a partridge. He threw a stick at the fox which dropped the bird,
which he seized, and, having roasted it, gave it to his wife to eat, and thereby
she was able to afford nourishment to her babe. Hearing this tale, Aghiz
gave the child—a boy—the name of Khalj or Khalaj, which signifies, accord-
ing to some authors, ‘‘leave the woman behind,” but others again say it is
a compound word derived from Js—Zha/, left, and -\—ay, hungry—“ left
hungry.” The posterity of this man became, in time, very numerous, and various
branches of them went out into Mawar-un-Nahr, the Garmsir of Ghiir, and
other parts of Khurasan, and into Irak [see also note १, page 287]

They furnished subsequently several independent Sulténs to Lakhanawati
[Bengal], and other independent kingdoms of India. There are branches of
them still to be found in Central Asia. Conolly, during his travels, had one
of their descendants as his guide at Astarabad.

The ’Usmanli [vul. Ottoman] Turks trace their descent from A ghiz.

It may not be amiss here to mention likewise the tradition respecting the origin
of the Turk-mans, and the reason of their being so named. On the occasion
of Aghiiz Khan’s entering Khurasan with his tribes, some of them had children
born to them there, and, liking the climate ‘‘in preference to the rigorous
winters and hardships of Turkiah,” and partly through certain exigencies
which arose—they were enemies of the Turks from the time Beghii, son of
Ghuzz, was slain—they selected to remain and dwell there, near the banks
of the Amiiiah. They multiplied considerably, and by degrees, possibly by
further intermixture with the natives of the country, their appearance became,
in course of time, somewhat like the Tajziks, or Sarts, as they are also styled,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 879
religion ; and, as from the extremity of the territories of

but, as they were not Tajziks [Can the term Sarik—J,\.—or Sarigh—g
—applied to the Tajziks by the Turks, signifying poor-spirited and the like, be
the derivation of Sav#? The Uzbaks call traders, and citizens, and people of
the towns generally, Sarts, while others style them Bukhiars], those people
styled them Turk-manind, and Turk-man, the both terminations, mdnind and
man, signifying, like, similar, &c. In this tradition, Khwarazm or the northern
tracts between the Sihiin and the Jihiin, and not Khurdsan, must be meant,
because most authors agree that it was many centuries after the time assigned
to Aghiiz Khan before any Turk-mans made their appearance west of the
Jihtin or Oxus, which, by two channels, then fell into the Caspian. See
note °, page 374. Some traditions assert that the Turk-mans have neither
connexion nor affinity with the Turks, and that they are altogether of a
different race, which is tolerably correct, since they are not descended from
Turk, but his brother.

The Kankuli tribes dwelt in the same tracts as the Turk-mins for some time,
in the sandy desert, but, on a great movement among the latter, and some of
them taking up their residence in towns and villages, ihe Kankulis left them,
and pitched their tents about the {81757 river, and Issigh-Kol, or the Issigh
Lake, but the greater part of those who continued there were massacred by
the Chingiz Khan on account of their relationship by marriage to the
Khwarazmi Sultans.

The movement of the Karliighs is connected with that of the Ghuzz already
mentioned in note 5, page 374, which see.

The other tribes of the Turks, not being so much mixed up with the events of
Western Asia and frontiers of Hind, at the period of our author’s history, need
not be referred to here, as the details would make this account much longer
than necessary.

To return to Aghiiz Khan. He, having returned to his original yzrat,
“‘which was Kar-Tagh and Ur-Tagh,” after his great expeditions and pro-
posed conquests, gave a mighty feast, to which all the chiefs and principal men
of all the tribes were summoned, and, at which, 90,000 sheep and goo mares
were consumed, besides other dainties, and a vast quantify of 4amiz, and
other strong drinks. He assigned y#ra¢s and names to all the different tribes
[under his sway], made laws and regulations, and organized armies into the
various divisions, as subsequently continued to be observed. He occupies
much the same position and celebrity among the Mughal I-mak, as Jamshed
among the I-ranis. According to Abi-l-Ghazi, he was contemporary with
Gaii-murt and his son Hishang, but, as he said ¢he very same thing previously
with respect to Tiitag or Tinag, son of Turk, we may doubt his accuracy
upon other subjects.

One day, Aghiiz Khan, attended by his six sons, went out on a hunting
excursion, when the latter found a golden bow and three golden arrows which
they brought to their father. He gave the bow to the three eldest, and the

arrows to the three youngest. The former divided the bow into three portions,
for which reason they were styled Bardz-tki—_J9j,—and Baj-iki-—_ J9¢—from
Bardz-iik or Baj-iik, which is said to mean ‘‘broken bow,” but, more probably,
‘sharers of the broken bow ;” and the three youngest were styled Udz-iki—
Fis —and Oj-iki—_Jye5! from Udz-tk or Uj-iik, signifying ‘‘three arrows.
On this account, the Bardz-iki are greater in degree than the Udz-aki, in the
Same manner as the bow represents sovereignty, while the arrows refer to the

880 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Chin, Turkistan, Mawar-un-Nahr, Tukhiristan, Zawul,

sovereign’s representatives and lieutenants. On all state occasions, and in
war, the right hand, which the Turks call baranghar—,&#,»,—or barankar—
,%i2 and the succession to the sovereignty, was assigned for ever to the Badz-
iki, and the left hand, or juwanghar—,\#!,-—or juwankar—,ii!,- to the
Udz-iki, with the lieutenancy and command of the soldiery.

After having ruled for 116 years, Aghiiz Khan died, leaving the sovereignty
to his eldest son, Kun or Kin.

The six sons of Aghiiz Khin are named: 1. Kun—.S—or Kiin—,,5 which
signifies sun, 2. Ae or A-I—.s!—moon, 3. Yal-diz—jys,—Yil-duz—j2y—
Vil-diiz—jya'y: or I-yal-dtiz—iyo,! star [See APPENDIX B, pages xi and xi
This is a complete answer to Mr. Blochmann’s ^" Contributions” as to ^" (1 ai
—a moon”—instead of yal—j,—and /-yal— J.\—being contained in the name
of I-yal-timish— गः I-yal-timish— Je! &c., as well as in I-bak
—o.)\], who were the eldest or Badz-iki; and 4. Kik—d $—or Kuk—eS—
sky, 6. Tak—s\—or Tagh—¢s—and Dagh—¢'» [Turks use ¢ where ’Ajamis
use क and substitute 6 where the latter use ¢] mountain ; and 6. Tingiz—

p45 sea, but probably lake, and this name is still used for the great lake
known as the Bal Kash, or the Tingiz.

From these six sons descended twenty-four sons, and, according to some
historians, each had four sons, while some others say that each of the brothers
had six sons, but this last seems an error. Abi-l-Ghiazi states that each of the
six brothers had four legitimate sons, and also four natural sons, which appears
from the very even numbers to be doubtful and improbable, and is totally con-
trary to other writers, thus making them forty-eight in all; but, farther on, he
again contradicts his own words. ~

The Akbar Namah of Abii-l-Fazl, contrary to all others, asserts that
Aghiiz’s sons and sons’ sons are twenty-four in all, and that ‘‘ the whole of
the Turk-mans’”’ are descended from these patriarchs or great men. This
statement does not give us a very favourable opinion of that writer’s knowledge
of his subject, and, if all these six sons’ descendants were Turk-mans, where
does he manage to get a Mughal pedigree for his master from? This is what
my Akbar Namahs have: what other Akbar Namahs may contain I am
unaware.

The Fanakati says that ^" Ughiiz Khan sent some of his sons and kins-
men, with a body of forces, into the parts more to the east, now called
Mighilistan,” which statement I shall have to refer to again farther on.

IV. Kun—,S—or K0N—,,S KHAN, eldest son of Aghiiz, succeeded his
father. He ruled over an extensive territory, and acquired predominance over
great part of Samiiran, and died after a reign of eighty years, but some say
seventy-three, and some seventy. By advice of his father’s old Wazir, Kabal
Khwajah, he made such wise arrangements that each of his brothers and their
sons had an appanage conferred upon him, and the place and rank of every
one was so specifically assigned that each knew his proper place and his share
even to the portion of the sheep at meal times, and this tended to keep them
all on a good understanding towards each other.

Abi-l-Ghazi says he divided his territory among his brothers and ‘their
twenty-four legitimate sons and natural sons.” He appears to have forgotten
that, by his own previous account, four legitimate sons, and as many natural
ones, belonged to Kun Khan himself. What he calls a division of dominions
is, no doubt, what I have just previously mentioned.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 881

Ghiir, Kabul, Ghaznin, ’Irak, Tabaristan, Aran, Azarbaijan

श, On the death of Kun Khan, his brother, Az or A-1 KHAN, succeeded,
and, after a long reign, was succeeded by his eldest son,

VI. YAL-DUZ—jysL—Y 01-02-99 or I-YAL-DUZ jak! During his
rule the people of Mughalistén were flourishing and prosperous. Abi-l-
Ghazi, contrary to other writers, says he was not Ae Khin’s brother of that
name, but merely one of the same family, and says nothing of his being Ae
Khan’s son.

VII. Next succeeded MANGALI KHAN—_X:. son of Yal-diiz. He also
made his people happy and prosperous, and died after a long reign. Some
writers, however, do not even mention his name.

VIII. Tinciz KHAN—;£5 also written, according to the Tajzik method
of substituting 7 for g—TINJiz—;« son of Mangali, succeeded on the death
of his father. A few writers are in doubts whether he was the son of Mangali
or not, but there can be no reasonable doubt on the subject. By some he is
said likewise to have abandoned the just ways and customs of his ancestors,
but the contrary seems the fact, and that he reigned worthily for a period of
110 years over Mughalistan, and then resigned the authority into the hands of
his son, and retired from the world. Some say his rule extended to a period
of 100 years, and scme 102.

IX. I-yaL KHAN—-J,|—but which may 54 according to the vowel points
that may be used with it, I! Khan, son of Tingiz or Tinjiz, succeeded to the
chieftain-ship of the Mughal I-mak. His reign is a most important one in the
annals of the descendants of Turk ; and, at the period in question, Tir, son
of Faridiin, sovereign of ’Ajam, ruled over [what the ’Arabs subsequently
styled by the name of] Mawar-un-Nahr, and Turkistan, which he had, it is said,
lately reduced, and invaded I-yal Khan’s territory with a numerous army.
Inveterate enmity had, long prior to this, arisen between the I-mak of Tattar
and I-mak of Mughal, as previously mentioned, and Tir succeeded in gaining
over to his side Siinj or Siindz Khan, the eighth chief of the Tattar dynasty,
and his subjects, and the I-ghiirs, who were descended from another son of
Mughal Khan, and had formed a separate tribe at an early date, and had now
become a great nation, likewise aided Tir. The confederates marched against
I-yal Khan, but the tribes of the Mughal I-mak, being much attached to I-yal
Khan, fought bravely in his defence, and a great number of Tattars and I-
ghirs and followers of Tir were slain in the conflict which ensued, and were
pursued for two farsakhs by the Mughals ; but victory was soon turned into
defeat. The retreat of the confederates was a mere ruse, and, the Mughals
having left their strong position and broken their array to pursue them, the
confederates faced about—some say the confederates did not renew the attack
until next day, when they fell upon them unawares—and entirely overthrew
them, put the whole of them to the sword, and made a general massacre of the
Mughal people, in such wise that, with the exception of Kaian—.,.j—son of
I-yal Khan, and Nagiiz— ,%i—son of I-yal’s maternal uncle, and their two
wives who were sisters, and all four of whom chanced to be without the camp
at the time, not a soul escaped of the whole Mughal I-mak.

This event is said to have happened 1000 years after the time of Aghiiz
Khan. At this rate, his five successors must have reigned 200 years each on
the average, and it is therefore evident that, either what are termed rulers are
the names of dynasties, or that only the names of the most celebrated of their
chiefs or sovereigns have been handed down to posterity, or the thousand years
must mean from the time of ४205, not A ghiiz.

882 THE TABAKAT-.LNASIRI.

the Jazirah, Anbar, Sijistin, Mukran, Kirman, Fars,

At this point,the Fanakati, who gives but a very brief notice of the Chingiz
Khan's ancestors, seems quite at sea. He says nothing whatever about A ghiz
Khan’s five successors, but states that, ‘‘after U ghiiz had conquered many coun-
tries, and had become firmly established, he despatched some of his sons and kins-
men, with other persons, and a body of forces into the east, into the parts now,
1. €. in his time, called Mighilistan [only A ghiiz himself was ruler of Mughal-
istan as his forefathers had been before him], and, after a period of 4000 years,
one among the Badshahs of Khitae began to make expeditions against those
peoples, crossed the Kara Miran or Black River, made a night attack upon
them, and massacred the whole [of the males], and carried off into captivity
their women and children. Of that people, but two persons, named Nagiiz
and Kaian, with their families, fled into the mountain tract which they call
Irkanah—a5;!—in one copy, and Irikanah Kiin— 5% a:<!,!—in another,
entered it, and there continued to dwell for a period of 400 years, during which
time they increased to such degree that that tract became too confined for
them,” &c.

This statement of his is simply impossible, because, if it were only those
peoples sent into the east, into what in the writer’s time was called ‘‘ Mighiil-
15121), by Ughiiz, under “some of his sons and kinsmen,” that were massacred,
what became of the parent stock of the Mughuls over whom U ghiz reigned?
They too must have also increased immensely during 4000 years. How is it
that he says nothing about them? He has turned two events into one, and
the last part of his statement is the account of the extermination of the Mughal
I-mak related above, and the former refers to a great massacre of the Jala-ir
tribe by the Khita-is in after years, as will be presently related.

There is little to be gathered from the traditionary history of I-ran respecting
these events, and the little that is mentioned is contradictory of the Mughal
accounts. Careful comparison of the voluminous traditions of the two peoples
might throw some light upon these occurrences, and some day I may attempt
it. According to the I-rani accounts, however, Faridiin divided his dominions
among his sons, and gave Tiiran—not @// Asia east of the Oxus, as modem
writers appear to assume—the capital of which is Kashghar, and part of which
tract was afterwards called Mawar-un-Nahr by the ’Arabs, Khurz, and Sak-
lab, to Tir, and Tiran is so named after him. Some of the I-rani chronicles
relate that the Turks are of the seed of Tir, and that Afrasiyab [who is cer-
tainly styled ‘‘ the Turk ” by the ’Ajamfs] was his great grandson, and that he
ruled over the countries east of the Jibiin, from the limits of [ind to the fron-
tier of the Turks.

Our author, Minhaj-ud-Din, in his account of the I-rani or ’Ajami kings,
also says that Afrasiyab was third in descent from Turk, and that his father
was Sunj— ¢ g~—which is much the same name as that of Siinj—¢5~— Khan,
the VII Ith of the Tattar I-mak, which may also be written Sunj, without the
long #.

But, as all this happened 1000 years—taking the most moderate period—
after Aghiz Khan, and as Faridin, father of Tir, was contemporary, they
say, with the patriarch Ibrahim, who was born in his reign, Aghiiz Khan
must, according to those chronicles, have flourished very far back indeed, and
anterior to Nih’s flood.

Abi-l-Ghazi, whose history, as previously mentioned, is the most modern of
those namcd at the beginning of this account, relates these events differently.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 883

Khizistan, the Diyar-i-Bakr, and Mausil, as far as the

He says that I-yal or Il Khan and Siindz Khan were continually at war with
each other, and the former was always victorious, but it must be remembered
that Abi-1-Ghazi sprung from the Mughal I-mak. Siindz Khan had therefore
to seek aid from the Khan of Karkir or Karkiz, who was a very powerful ruler,
and he also worked so much upon other tribes, the neighbours of I-yal Khan,
that they too combined with him. I-yal Khan, in consequence, took up a very
advantageous position which he strengthened so much, that the confederates
were unable to force it, but, having placed their best soldiers in ambuscade,
pretended flight, to draw the Mughals from their stronghold.

The rest agrees with what has been already stated, and Kar-kir or Kar-kiz is
evidently a mistake for Khar-khez—};s,—also written Khar-kher—,«+— of
the I-ghiirs, which is generally used in conjunction with Tungit in the history
of the Chingiz Khan. Abii-1-Ghazt however mentions, with regard to those
who escaped the massacre, that they were taken captive by the Tattars, but,
subsequently, escaped from the solitary guard placed overthem. The Khan of
Kar-kir or Kar-kiz, in this account, would seem to be meant for Tir of the
I-rani authors.

Abii-1-Ghazt however constantly falls into error, for, after having given this
account of the destruction of the Mughals by the Tattars, he, in another place,
makes ‘‘the tribe of Tattars ” an entirely new subject, as though another, and
distinct tribe. See also the translation of that work :— ‘‘ History of the Turks,
Moguls, and Tatars,” page 38, vol. i. London, MDCCXXx.

Mirza Muhammad Hasan Khin, otherwise Mirzi Muhammad Haidar,
son of Mubammad Husain, Doghlati, who preceded Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur
Khan, by about a century, says, that the country and tribes of Mughalistan
had become so utterly ruined and dispersed a hundred years or more before Ais
time even—he wrote in 951 H.—that not a sign or trace remained of men
capable of writing history, and mentions this as the reason of his own inability
to furnish better accounts of them than he has done. I mention this to show
that Abi-1-Ghazi, although he did possess eighteen books on the subject—
including the Tarikh-i-Ghazani—written by Turks and Tajziks, preferred, it
seems, rather to collect oral traditions, many centuries old, than refer to his
written authorities.

Abi-1-Fazl, the author of the Akbar Namah, who conceals everything that
he fancies does not tend to the glorification of his master, Akbar, smoothes
over this total overthrow and almost extinction of the Mughal-I-mak, from
which his master traces his descent, gives a cock and bull story to begin with,
and says that, ‘‘after putting Tir, and ऽ प्रणतः Khan, and the I-ghirs to flight,
they played the part of the fox upon the Mughals,” and winds up with excuses
and apologies for the disaster, where none are required, and the unction of con-
solation that it was ‘‘all for the best,” &c., &c. If the Mughals had been the
triumphant party, what a flourish of trumpets we should have been treated to !

Thus it was then that the Mughal I-mak was exterminated, with the excep-
tion of two males, Kain and Nagiiz, and two females, their wives, and, hence,
all Mughals whatsoever are descended from them—with the exception of those
of the I-mak who followed the uncles of A ghiiz into the farther east, according
to the traditions contained in some works—and are not Tattars, although they
are, by descent, Turks.

From what has just been stated, and what has been previously mentioned,
it will now be clearly seen why such hostility existed—and continues to exist to

884 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

boundaries of Riim and Shim, fell into the hands of the

this day—between the Turks of the Tattar I-mak, from that time known in
the writings of Oriental historians under the general name of Turks as
well as Tattars, and the descendants of the two Mughals who escaped this
general massacre, and who were destined to become the progenitors of that
sanguinary conqueror, the Chingiz Khan. This enmity, doubtless, burnt in the
breasts of himself and his tribe, when he invaded and attacked the dominions
of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, besides the provocation he had received
through the treatment of his envoys and merchants, that Sultan being a
Turk of the Tattar I-mak, and also allied to them by marriage.

We cannot fail to perceive the same enmity existing from the pages of our
author. The great Turk Maliks of the Dihli kingdom, and the Dihli sovereigns,
were Turks of the Tattar I-mak, and, consequently, natural foes of the
Mughal I-mak, and our author, probably taking the cue from his patrons,
invariably styles the latter the “ infidel Mughals,” and hence too the refusal
of Sultan, I-yal-timish, to hold any communication with the emissaries of
the Mughal Khans, the descendants of the Chingiz Khan, and of Barkah Khan
in particular, although he was a Musalman like himself, and his emissares
likewise were of the same faith, and the Sultan’s sending them to the fortress
of Gwaliyiir ; and afterwards, by command of his daughter, Sultan Ragziyyat,
they were confined at Kinnauj, beyond which city they were not allowed to
go, and there they subsequently died, as will be found farther on. Ulugh
Khan’s own tribe—the Ilbari—too had to fly before the Mughals when they
acquired pfedominance over Turkistan, and the tribes of Khafchak, and his
little brother, afterwards the Amir-i-Hajib of Sultan Nagir-ud-Din, Mabmiid
Shah, fell into the hands of the Mughals, and was sold by them as a slave, as
previously related, at page 800, which see

The same natural enmity probably influenced Timir in some way, in after
years, in his hostility towards the ’Usmanli Sultan, Bayazid, for Timiir was of
the Mughal I-mak, and of the royal tribe of the Mughals, whilst Bayazid was
of the Tattar I-mak. To call a Turk, or a Tattar Turk, a Mughal was the
greatest insult that could be offered him, or to call a Mughal a Tattar, but
several European writers have held peculiar ideas respecting these two I-maks.
I extract the following as a specimen, from a work entitled ‘‘ 7ravels in thé
Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the Crimea, the Caucasus,” &c., by Xavier Hom-
maire de Hell. London, 1847

‘* Perhaps no people has given occasion to more discussions than the Tatars
and Mongols, nor is the problem of their origin completely solved in our day,
notwithstanding the most learned investigations. Some admit that the Tatars
and Mongols formed but one nation, others allege that they are two essentially
different races. According to Lesvéque, D’Herbelot, and Lesur, the Tatars
are but Turks. Klaproth, while he asserts that the Tatars and Mongols spring
from the same stock, nevertheless regards the White Tatars whom Genghis
[Chingiz ?] Khan conquered, as Turks.”

The first three authors mentioned were quite correct in their statements, and
Klaproth is both right and wrong, for his ‘‘white Tatars,” like a// other Tattars,
are undoubtedly Turks. The statement of D’Ohsson is the most astonishing,
and totally incorrect :—‘‘ Lastly, D’Ohsson, in his remarkable history of the
Mongols, treats the Mongols and Tatars as distinct races, but does not admil
the theory [!] of the Turkish origin.”

The writer continues :—‘‘ The same uncertainty, that hangs over the Moa-

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 885

infidel Mughals, and not a trace of the Muhammadan

gol and Tatar hordes of the fourteenth century, prevails with regard to the
people who, under the name of Tatars, now dwell in the southern part of the
Russian empire ; and they have been considered sometimes as descendants of
the Turkish tribes that occupied those regions previously to the twelfth century,
sometimes as remnants of the conquering Mongol Tatars.”

This last compound is an utterly impossible name. There is no uncertainty,
and no theory, whatever, in the matter, as might have been seen had the
Oriental writers been correctly read, and the difference between the Turks of
the two I-maks of Tattar and Mughal been properly understood. I hope I
have clearly demonstrated the fact now, because, according to compilers of
Indian history, who merely draw their inspirations from Dow, BRIGGs, and
some few others, the Turks with other wholly different races have formed
their ‘‘ PATHAN or AFGHAN DYNASTIES,” so-called—the ‘‘ Dehli Pathans,”
‘‘Jounpoore Pathans,” ‘‘Ghort Pathans,” ‘“Khilji Pathans,” ‘‘Tughluk Pa-
thans,” &c., of the Oriental Congress of 1874—and which fantastic names,
I am lately informed, signify, or, are meant to signify, “ Pre-Mughal”
dynasties !

The same writer continues to show into what a state of utter confusion this
simple genealogy has been thrown by the writers themselves :—‘* The Chinese
writers for the first time make mention of the Tatar people in the eighth cen-
tury of our era, under the name of Tata, and consider them as a branch of the
Mongols. The general and historian, Meng Koung [Klaproth: Asia Poly-
glotta}, who died in 1246, and who commanded a Chinese force sent to aid the
Mongols against the Kin, informs us in his memoirs that a part of the Tatar
horde, formerly dispersed or subdued by the Khitans [who, in the same work,
are said to have occupied the country north of the Chinese provinces of Tschy
Liand Ching Ching, watered by the Charamuin [Kara Muran १], or Liao Ho
and its confluents], quitted the In Chan mountains, where they had taken refuge,
and joined their countrymen who dwelt north-east of the Khitans. The white
Tatars and the savage or d/ack Tatars then formed the most important tribes of
those regions.” Here undoubtedly the issuing forth of the descendants of
Kaian and Nagiz is referred to, which I shall presently mention.

The author continues in the same strain, making similar blunders, while the
truth lies under his very nose, but he fails to see it, and here isa very rich specimen:
—" The princes of this empire | Kaptshak—Khafchak १] were Mongols or Tatars,
but the majority of their subjects were Turks” ८८ He also states, taking his
information from different European writers, that ‘‘Genghis Khan, though born
in the tribe especially designated as black Tatars, yet adopted the denomination of
Mongols for his people,” and ‘‘ that the appellation Tatar lost all signification in
Asia under the destroying power of Ghenghis (ssc) Khan, and has ever since
existed only in the European vocabulary.”

The writer of this last marvellously incorrect statement also asserts that *‘the
word Tatar owes its origin only to a jeu de mots of which St. Louis was the
author.” Perhaps St. Louis stood god-father to Tattar the son of Alanjah, and
gave him that name.

The assertion that the Chingiz Khan was ‘‘a black Tatar,” and adofted the
denomination of ‘‘ Mongols” or Mughals for his people is, as I have already
shown, and shall show still more farther on, totally and utterly incorrect, and
for that, as well as the other incorrect assertions contained in this book, and
its author’s authorities, respecting the Turks, Tattars, and Mughals, I challenge

886 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Maliks and Sultans of Islam remained in these countries—

any one to show mea single proofin any Muhammadan, or in any Asiatic,
writer whatever.

I notice, and, I must say, with utter surprise, that much the same erroneous
ideas are put forward in ‘‘ AN ANCIENT HIsTory from the Earliest Records
to the Fall of the Western Empire, by PAzlip Smith, B.A., one of the principal
contributors to the Dictionaries of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Biography,
and Geography,” published in 1868, and which has gone through several
editions. He says [vol. iil., page 737] :-

८५ Sober criticism has cast more than a doubt upon the romantic story, ग-
ginated by Des Guignes and adorned by the pen of Gibbon, which seeks in wars
upon the frontiers of China the remote cause of the appearance of the HUNs in
Europe in the former part of the fourth century. It is quite true that the peo-
ple belonged to that great Turanian race, known to the Greeks as SCYTHIANS,
and in modern times as TATARS,” &c., &c.

No “romantic story” originated with Des Guignes ; he merely related what
he found in the history of the people he wrote about, and who, at least, may
be allowed to have known their own history and traditions better than a Greek
who wrote down what he heard from illiterate soldiers, and the often idle tales
of traders. |

In a foot-note he says: ‘‘ The extension of this from a specific to a generic
name is due to the prominent place occupied by the Tatars of Eastern Mon-
golia in the army of Zingis (or Genghis) Khan; and the common corruption
into Zartars is ascribed to a pun of St. Louis. . . As the name of Tatar is even
more specific than that of Mongol, it were to be wished that ethnologists would
follow the practice of the Greeks, and use SCYTHIANS for the generic name.”

If ethnologists were to do so, they would commit a terrible blunder. The
error of asserting that the name of Tattar—which appears in the earliest of
the Muhammadan writers—is moder, is not greater than the assertion that
they owed the name ‘‘ to the prominent place they occupied in the army of Zingis
(or Genghis) Khan.”

‘“‘The Tatars of Eastern Mongolia” did not occupy ‘‘a prominent place in
the army of Zingis (or Genghis); ”’ but the Mughal I-mak did ; and the Tattars
contained in it, who were comparatively few, had been compelled, by the
Chingiz Khan, to join him.

Again [page 738]: ‘‘The Scythians are divided into four great races. —1. The
Mongoltans are the least numerous, though many writers apply their name to
the whole family, in consequence of the fame of their chief Zingis Khan. . . 2.
The 7uneusian race... 3. The Ugrian race... 4. The Turkish race occupied
not only the great region of West Central Asia, from the Lake Baikal to the
Caspian, which the progress of Russia is fast depriving of the name of /mde
pendent Tartary; but they extended over the vast steppes of south-eastem
Europe, round the northern sides of the Caspian, the Caucasus, and the
Euxine. Their precise partition from the Slavonian race is a difficult problem,”
&c., &c.

Their ^" precise partition from the Slavonian race” is no “difficult problem”
whatever. In the Scythians so-called, we have clearly included the whole of
the descendants of Yafis’ sons, as given in the fourth para. of this account of
them. The localities of the Turkish races are wrongly given, and most of the tracts
mentioned above were peopled by the descendants of other sons of ४ 205, more
particularly of Bulghar, ancestor of the Bulgarians, Sak-lab, of the Slavonians,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 887

the Almighty’s mercy be upon them, and may He long pre-

and Riis, of the Russians. It is something new to hear the name of ‘‘ Mongo-
lians,” who ‘‘are the least numerous,”’ applied to the whole race of Scythians.

The writer continues in a similar strain, and we are at length told that the
name °“ Decebalus” is ‘‘ strange to Gothic, strange to Slavonic, not strange to
Turkish history,” but the writer would have had some little difficulty to name any
Turkish history in which such a name occurs ; and Darius and Herodotus are
also quoted to prove such statements as these, but which the authors who wrote
in the country of the Turks, Tattars, and Mughals, and with many tribes of those
people dwelling around them, would simply ridicule.

_ After this long, but necessary, digression, I return to the subject of the Mughal
I-mak.

The reason why we possess much greater information respecting the Mughal
I-mak is owing to their overwhelming successes and conquests, and because
nearly all authors who have written on the subject were subjects of the Mughal
rulers, and their object was to trace their descent more particularly, but the
main facts are not concealed—they merely gave more attention to the history of
the Mughals. It is to be regretted however that we have no detailed accounts
of the movements of the tribes of the Tattar I-mak and their rulers, after the
time of Siindz Khan, the VII{th of the Tattar dynasty herein mentioned, who,
with the aid of his allies, nearly exterminated the whole Mughal race ; but,
from what may be gathered from Oriental history, and as shown in this Transla-
tion, the Tattar I-mak, the offshoots of the descendants of the seven chieftains
preceding Siindz Khan, also formed, like preceding offshoots of the descendants
of Turk, in the course of time, great independent tribes who are correctly
styled Tattars, as well as those springing from Tattar Khan and his descendants,
the whole being undoubtedly Turks, or, in other words, all those who do not
spring from the Mughal I-mak, and are not descended from Mughal Khan—
Tattar’s brother—being correctly styled Tattars, and others, not springing in a
direct line from Tattar Khan, but from others, the offshoots of his ancestors,
being properly called Turks.

All these formed mighty tribes and nations, the names of some of which have
been herein mentioned, and some formed great empires, like as did the Saljiiks,
Khwirazmis, and others. The early Musalmans made raids upon them, and
the Khalifahs also, from a very early period, entertained numbers of Turks and
Tattar I-mak in their service, but we ever Acar of Mughals being entertained
by them. There is no doubt that their taking service under the Khalifahs and
their great vassals, many of whom were their own countrymen, considerably
tended to the greater civilization of the Turks and Tattars, and their early
conversion to the Musalman faith, but, with regard to others not converted, it is
evident that feuds arose among them and that Musalman merchants carried on
a large traffic in Turkish slaves.

The four persons, two males—Kaian, son of I-yal-Khan, and Nagi, his
maternal uncle’s son, with their respective sisters, their wives—the Timiir
Namah says two females, sisters, who, at this juncture, they took to wife—
having escaped the slaughter of their people, secured some of their effects, and
as soon as night set in they mounted horses, and made for the mountains which
were some distance off. They also collected some of the stray cattle and flocks
which they met with in their flight, and reached the mountains—some say, the
next morning—entered them by a narrow track, scarcely distinguishable, made
by the wild animals haunting it, and which was almost inaccessible, from rocks

888 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

serve the Nasiriah dynasty !—I desired to record in writing

and forests, and proceeded onwards for a long distance among its mazes until
they reached a more open country where was plenty of pasture. At some dis-
tance, farther off, they perceived a still higher range, the sides of which, bare
and barren, appeared to be of flint alone, and which towered upwards like a
vast fortress. With much difficulty they ascended it, and to their great joy
found themselves in a delightful tract of country, well watered, with plenty of
rich pasture, and abounding with game, and there they resolved to take up
their dwelling. This higher range is called Irganah Ki or Kin—,.,45 or $ 4४))
—irganak being said to signify a valley, and 4% or 4% a steep ascent or
height—the valley [or table-land ?] surrounded by hills, or valley of precipices.
The mountains referred to are evidently those mighty ranges towards the
sources of the Salingah and its upper tributaries.

In this place of residence Kaian and Nagiiz flourished, and in the course of
time their posterity multiplied, and separated into several branches under
different names. The descendants of Kaian are styled Kaiat—o\s—and
those of Nagiiz, Diiral-gin or Dir-la-gin—.,.65,,>—or Dural-gin or Dur-la-gin
— J, After a considerable period, which most of the works I have quoted
do not pretend to fix, their writers moreover stating that no chronicler is
cognizant of it, but which the Fanakati, who is followed by Abi-l-Ghazi, says,
was over 400 years, the tribes of Kaiat and Diral-gin had increased to such
degree that the country about Irganah-Kiin was insufficient to afford them sub-
sistence. They therefore resolved to leave it, and seek the encamping-grounds
which they had heard, through tradition, their ancestors had formerly possessed,
and they entered the old country of the Mughal I-mak accordingly.

Abi-l-Fagl, the author of the Akbar Namah, however, makes a very bold
guess indeed, and has the assurance to fix the period at ‘‘ about 2000 years.”
—This is almost as absurd as the Fanakati’s 4000 years previously referred to—
He has mixed up the account of the I-ghiirs with that of Kaiat and Diral-gin,
and hence this assumption. He also asserts that this migration took place at
the end of the reign of Niishirwan, the Just, ruler of I-ran [a.p. 521—579}
and ‘‘supposes” that the art of writing and reading did not exist. He also
states that, during that period of ‘‘ nearly 2000 years,” while they dwelt in
Irganah-Kiin, twenty-five persons ‘‘ reigned,” which would give over eighty
years’ reign to each ; but most of the other writers I have compiled this account
from, with the exception of Abi-l-Ghazi, say nothing about any previous
rulers, while some others distinctly state that they obeyed no single chief, until
the period when the chief authority over the different tribes fell to I-yal-dw,
son of Mangali.

At the time that the descendants of Kaian and Nagiz determined upon
issuing from Irganah-Kin, the chieftainship had fallen to YAL-DUZ—;,0L—or
YOL-DUZ—j9).—or I-YAL-DUz—; )s4|—Khan, son of Mangali Khan, [styled
Mangali Khwajah, by some], son of Timiir-Tash, of the race of Kaian,
and he was a chieftain of considerable power and dignity. In this matter all
agree except Abii-I-Ghazi, who states that, when they issued from Irganab-
Kin, their chief was named Bartazinah [? 4735], and gives names of seven
other chiefs before he reaches that of Timir-Tash, Mangali Khan, and Yil-
diz or I-yal-diiz, but gives no account of them beyond their succeeding and
dying. This however we cannot credit, since, in the account of the Ching
Khin, <lmost immediately after, he says, that, while dwelling in Irganah-Kin,
the Mughals were in total ignorance of the names of the rulers, but that they

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 889

an account of these occurrences, from the beginning of the

were certainly Kaiats, and, since the books of the Mughals contain nothing
certain on this head, he is obliged to leave a gap in this place !!

At this point the different writers I have been quoting mention the boun-
daries and limits of the Mughal country—Mughalistan. ‘It lies,” they say, ‘‘a
long way east, and far from cultivated countries, and is seven or eight months’
journey (in extent),” some say it is a year’s journey. The Mughals lived in
forests and wilds, their food was from the animals of the chase, and the produce
of their flocks and herds, and their garments the skins thereof. ‘The extreme
eastern limit was the frontier of Khita, on the west it adjoined the country of
the I-ghiirs. On the north it extended as far as the country of the Kirghiz—
j3¢3—([the Akbar Namah has Farghanah which is S.] which is also written
Kirghiz—#3—and Kirkiz—j53—and Kirkiz—sj—é and J—being inter-
changeable, and Salingae—,,&!\.—[the country towards the River Salingah is
evidently meant here], and south it reached to the frontiers of Tibbat. Our
author [page 273] says the forces of the Chingiz Khan had to undertake a three
months’ march through ‘‘ the wilderness,” or steppe, from the place where he
assembled his host on hearing of the massacre of his emissaries and merchants
by the Khwarazmis, to enable them to reach the Utrar frontier.

The country of the I-ghiirs is described as containing two great ranges of
mountains, one of which they call Kara-Tii, and the other, Uskiin-Lik, and
the monntain (range?) of Kara-Kuram lies between these two iam es. The
residence built by Uktae Ka’an near it is named after this 40h of Kara-Kuram.
To the south of these two great ranges, before named, is another which they
style Kit-Tagh. Out of one of these ranges ten rivers flow, and out of the
other nine; and, in ancient times, the I- ghirs dwelt along the banks of these
rivers. Those who dwelt on the ten [ss] rivers were called Un-I-ghirs, and
those who were located on the nine [/o4#s], Tokiiz-I-ghirs. There were some
other tribes dwelling near them, but space forbids my going into farther
detail here.

` Mirzi Mubammad Haidar, of the Doghlatf tribe of the Mughals, pre-
viously mentioned, a native of Farghanah, in his work, written in 951 H.,
explains the southern boundary as extending towards Tungit or Tingit,
and the northern to Kira-kfr, the Kirkiz or Kirghiz of others. He adds
[I only give a brief abstract] that of ^" these four boundaries, mentioned in the
Jahin Kughie of the Jawaini, the country of Khitae is distinct and known,
but, as regards the I-ghiir country, nothing is known of it at present as
to where it is, and, at this day, nothing is known of Kara-kir or Salingie,
and no places with such names are indicated. The name of Tungiit often
occurs in the history of the Mughals, and the Chingiz Khan, at the outset of his
power, despatched an army thither, but now nothing whatever is known of it,
nor is information to be obtained regarding these parts which are mentioned
in books, and the same may be said of many famous cities such as Bilasa-ghiin,
Taraz, and the like.”

He further states, that ‘‘the extent of Mughiilistan, so called in his time,
which was much contracted from what it had been [and which is styled Jatah
in the History of Timiir], was seven or eight months’ journey in length and
breadth, and gives the following as its boundaries. On the N. the Kokjah
Tingiz—;£:3 s—8S—Bom-Labas or Labs— ^ - अत्‌ Kara-Tal—Julg—S.
the territory of Farghanah, Kashghar, Aksi, Jaligh, and Tirfin. On the
E. it adjoins the land of the Kalfmaks [the Kal I-mak ? this is not the name

. 3 L

890 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
irruption of that race, and domination of that nation, up to

of the people, but merely their nickname] which is the Paras or Pars-Kol—
५ Vey y—I-mil—Jeos!|—Irtish—Utse! [or Irdish—Utro,|—also the name
of a tract of country] and the Paras-Kol is its eastern limit ; and the भ.
boundary is the territory of Turkistan and Tashkand [the Altam or Golden
Mountains, the northern boundary of Tashkand]. The writer was himself
well acquainted with its southern boundary, and, respecting the other three,
obtained his information from persons who had visited, and were acquainted
with them, and Mugbiilistan consists entirely of mountains and plains [steppes}.”
What he himself saw of it, he says, he cannot find words to praise sufficiently,
and that, from the accounts of others, the other parts are equally delightful, but
the winters are cold. ‘‘ Mughiiistan,” he says, ‘‘ has several rivers, like unto
the Jihiin and Sibiin in size and extent, such as the I-lah—sk|—I-mil—Jewl—
Irtish-Jiilik—ehyp (ti el—and the Narin—.»,b—all of which, in respect of
volume, are not less than the Jihiin and Sihiin. These waters mostly fall into
the Kokjah-Tingiz, which is a शट or Lake Bae-Kol [the Baikal Lake of
our maps] between Mughilistan and Ozbakistin. Its length is eight months’
[weeks’ ?] journey, and its width, in some places, by computation, is thirty
farsakhs, and, when it is frozen in the winter, the Uzbaks pass over it, and
enter Mughilistan. The Isstgh-Kol is also in Mughilistan.”

Babar however, who preceded Mirzi Muhammad Haidar, a few years, says
that Almaligh, Almati, and Utrar, lay north of Farghanah, but that they had
been laid waste by the Uzbaks.

Abi-l-Ghiazi says the true Mughal country contains two ranges of very lofty
mountains [which are plainly shown on the best maps of Central Asia] extend-
ing from east to west, and between these two ranges, nearest to the west, is
the true country of the Mughals. Still more west lay the country of the
I-ghirs. This description agrees with that given by other authors in the
account of Kara Khan [page 875], and those two great ranges of mountains
have been already named.

To return to the descendants of Kaiin and Nagtiz, They, having deter-
mined to issue from Irganah-Kiin, thought of doing so by the same route or
defile by which their ancestors had entered it, but they found it impossible. The
pass had been destroyed by an earthquake, and no trace of it remained. They
searched about in all directions, and at last they found one spot which seemed
easier than any other, but it was impeded by a hill in which was a mine of
iron [iron-stone rock possibly], and to enable them to get out they split the
rocks by means of fire [Hannibal used vinegar in the Alps], and succeeded in
making a practicable route. The tribe of Kungkurat or Kunghurat, as it is
also written, led the way out, and were in such haste to do so that they are said,
in the tradition, to have burnt their feet. The Majami’-ul-Khiyar distinctly
states that this event took place some time after the 200th year of the Hijrah.

This is improved upon by Petis de la Croix, in his ^" Life of Genghizcan the
Great,” page 6, who says that the Cayat [Kaiat?] derived their name ‘froma
certain people who lived in the remotest Northern Parts of Mogolistan which
were called Cayat, because their Chief had heretofore erected a Foundry for
Iron-work in a mountain called Arkenekom, which gained them a great Rept-
tation, and made this Branch of the Moguls highly esteemed, by the great
advantage all the Moguls Country received from this Invention ; they there-
fore called these people the Arkenckom-Smiths.” This is history with a
vengeance !

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO JSLAM. 891

the year 658 H., when this work was brought to a conclusion,

Their former country had been in the meantime occupied by tribes of the

Tattar I-mak, and other Turks, and the Mughals fought with them, and drove
them out. The former, consequently, had to seek other tracts. Some went
away to the eastward, while others went west, and south, and north; and,
about this period, we find a great movement among the Saljiiks and the
Ghuzz in a south-westerly direction. Those tribes of the Mughal I-mak
which left Oghiiz Khan’s country, as previously related, and had gone towards
the borders of Chin and sought the protection of the Tattars, now returned,
and rejoined the tribes of Kaiat and Diiral-gin, while some other small tribes,
but of which I-mak is not mentioned, which submitted to Yal-diz or I-yal-
diz Khan, were permitted to dwell in his newly acquired territory.

According to the Fanakatf the name Mughiil or Mighill is the appellative or
generic name applied to those who came out of Irganah-Kin, and to the
others of that I-mak who rejoined and continued to dwell with them, and that
name commenced to be used respecting them /vont this period, but they had
been known, centuries before, as Turks of the Mughiil I-mak, by his own account.

Some writers who approach this subject from the ^ Mongol ” point of view,
and who, unable to read ‘the originals for themselves, imagine that every
author who wrote in the Persian language must necessarily be a Persian, and,
consequently, cannot know anything of Mughal or Mughil history, because
such a word 25 “ Mongol” is not to be found in their works, hug themselves
with the idea that the History written by the ‘‘ great Raschid” may contain
something in support of their crude ideas. For the information of such I here
append the headings of the first four Sections of Rashfd-ud-Din’s History of
the Mughiils, as he styles them, and which was compiled from the Altin
Daftar, or Golden Record, and other authorities :—

“‘ First Section. —History of the tribes of Aghiiz, who was the great grandson
of Alminjah Khan, son of Turk, son of Yafig, son of Nih, the Prophet, and
of the tribes descended from his uncles, with an account of their genealogy and
ramifications.

Second Section.—Account of the Turk tribes whom they designate by the
name of Mughiils, but every one of which, in ancient times, bore distinct and
particular surnames, and have had Sar-wars and Amirs over them.

Third Section.—Account of the Turk tribes, every one of which have had
Badghahs and Chiefs, but who bore no relationship to the tribes mentioned in
the preceding Sections. [This is a paradox, even from his own words, because,
being Turks, they naturally bore relationship to the Turks as descendants from
a common ancestor. ]

Fourth Sectton.—Account of the tribes of Turks, whose surname from time
immemorial was Mughiil ; and this Section is in two parts. 1. Account of |
the Dural-gin Mughiils. 2. Account of the Nairiin Mughiils. [The author
cannot be right, for has not Mr. H. H. Howorth, in the Geographical Maga-
zine for November, 1876, declared that Mongols are not Turks? This may be
correct with regard to ‘‘ Mongols,” but scarcely so with respect to Raghid-ud-
Din’s Mughils. ]”

The next Section treats of the ancestors of the Chingiz Khan.

Every year, when the anniversary of that day comes round on which the Kaiat
and Diiral-gin came out of Irganah-Kiin, the Mughals keep it as a great festi-
val, and on the night thereof the Mughal sovereigns have the implements of the
blacksmith brought in, place a piece of iron in the fire, and heat it, and,

3L2

892 7 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and in order that that which I myself witnessed, and what

when hot, beat it on an anvil with a hammer, in commemoration of opening
the way out, and this custom, imperfectly understood by Ibn Batitah, and
others, led them probably to make the absurd statement that the Chingiz Khan,
or Tamur-chi, ^" was in his outset a blacksmith in the country of Khita”’!

Other authors say that all who can trace their descent to Kaian or Naguz—
Kaiats and Diral-gins—are considered true Mughals.

On the death of Yal-diiz or I-yal-diiz his son succeeded to his authority.

J0-INAH—1752—and, by some few writers, Chibinah—«.42—and Khii-inah
—.s1 9% —and even ays but these two last forms are erroneous without doubt,
particularly the last, succeeded his father, Yal-diiz or I-yal-diiz, in the
chieftain-ship, but the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir does not account him as a ruler,
and makes Jii-inah’s daughter next in succession to Yal-diz or I-yal-diz
The Tarikh-i-Ghazanf, which Abi-l-Ghazi also quotes, differs considerably
from other writers. It states that Yal-diiz or I-yal-diz had two sons named
Bakjadi or Bagjadi—.sss%—and Bilkadae or Bilgadae— ssl, —[according
to Rashid-ud-Din, in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, Nish-Tigin-i-Gharjah, the
founder of the Khwarazmi empire, claimed descent from Aghiz through this
very Bilkadae or Bilgadae. See note? to page 231, para. 4], but these names
are somewhat doubtfully written and may not be quite correct. According to
the same authority, both died before him, and he gave to the son of one of
them, named Do-yiin or Doi-iin Byan—ylv ७१७० or Do-yiin Bayan— gh yyy?
which is also written Dibin—,..»)9—Diyitin—,y9::—and in other ways, the
daughter of the other son, who was named Alan-Kuwa, a damsel of great
beauty and talent, in marriage. Abi-l-Ghazi however differs from the pre-
ceding this much that he says the husband of Alan-Kuwa, who was Yal-dii's
grandson, did not succeed to the sovereignty because ‘he had not attained the
age of thirty, and died soon after his father, leaving two sons—named as
above—by Alan-Kuwa ; and that she acted as regent only, while others say
that her husband was chief over some few u/#s, and that the Turks generally
were under various independent chiefs.

The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir however says that Alan-Kuwa was given in marriage
by her father, Ji-inah, to her uncle’s son, as stated by the others, and that,
by him, she had two sons named Bilkadi or Bilgadi and Bakjadi or Bagjadi,
and after his death she assumed the sovereignty and occupied herself inthe
nurture of her two sons. At this time she dwelt near the upper sources of the
Kalir-An river.

ALAN-KuwA—'s’ y¥i—which is also written’ ALAN-KO—35 .¥i—and
ALAN-KUWAN ८9 »¥'—on the death of her father, her husband being dead,
was entrusted with the direction of affairs until such time as her eldest sou
should become of age to succeed; but, in the meantime, although she refused
to marry again, whilst lying asleep upon her couch, on a certain ocassion, a mys
terious light entered through the hole in the top of the felt tent and enveloped
her, and the light passed through her mouth, penetrated her, and she coa-
ceived. This mysterious light came more than once, such was her story ; and,
as matters could no longer be concealed, it was made known unto her tnbe,
who reviled her, and refused to believe her story. Some writers state that
she asked some of the chief persons of her tribe to keep watch, and satisfy
themselves of the truth of what she had stated, and that some did so, and
found her story correct, and the tribe were satisfied.

This is not much like the ‘‘ story of the incarnation of the Buddha Sakya

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 893

I became'cognizant of from the accounts of trustworthy

muni’”’ as a recent writer asserts, considering that the husband of his mother
[who had never consummated her marriage with her husband] was, according
to Chinese belief, ruler of Kashmir, and that his birth took place 1222 years
before the Christian era, while the Hindiis, on the other hand, give a different
account of his birth.

This story of Alan-Kuwa is related somewhat differently by nearly every
author, including Abi-!-Ghazi, but I have no space for the various versions here.
Abi-l-Fazl, however, for the glorification of his master, according to his usual
unctuous system of flattery, compares this circumstance to the immaculate
conception of the Virgin Mother of our Blessed Saviour !

In due time, Alan-Kuwa gave birth to three sons at one time, with one of
whom, the youngest, a new dynasty, and a new era commences, and therefore
it will be well to conclude this one here.

THE BUO-ZANJAR OR BO-ZANJAR DYNASTY.

1. BO-zanjAr. Alin-Kuwa, the widow, having given birth to three sons at
once, fathered on the mysterious light, according to the fabulous tale just
narrated, the youngest of the brothers, according to some writers, and the
eldest of the three, according to others, who was named BU-ZANJAR—,s} »
—which some write Abii-zanjar—,¢; »!—and Bi-zanjar—,¢3 ॐ which is
said to signify Badghah-i-Mu’agzam—Great Sovereign—and who is the
ninth ancestor of the Chingiz Khan, and fourteenth of Amir Timiir, in due time
succeeded to the chieftain-ship over the Mughals ; and, as I wish to compress
as much as possible, I will only mention that the other two sons of Alan-
Kuwa—the eldest and second sons—became the progenitors of the Kat-ghan
— ,i—and Saljiiit—c,.9—tribes, and whose descendants, together with
those of Bii-zanjar himself, are designated Niirin—,+,3—from niir—,i—light
which some authors write, Nairiin—y i The whole of the Mughal Khans
[one copy of the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir adds—“ and ad/ the Sultans of Turkistan””]
trace their descent from Bi-zanjar, but, really, the whole of his descendants are
Mughals ovly on the mother’s side, woless the father, of which there can be no
doubt, was a Mughal 2150

The descendants of Alan-Kuwa’s legitimate sons, by her husband, are styled
by the general name of Dural-gin—.,<J,:—previously written Diral-gin—
u=),32—Dural-gin— ७9 and applied to the descendants of Nagiiz, whilst,
by the different writers’ own accounts, without exception, they, as well as their
fatherand mother, belonged to the Kaiat sept. They are considered lower in
rank than the Niriin or Nairiin.

The majority of writers state that the birth of these sons of light took place
in the time of Abii-Muslim, the Marwazi, the proclaimer of the rights of the
’Abbasis to the Khilafat. He was born in 99 H. [A.D. 717—718]—some say
in the following year—and he began to advocate the claims of that house in
128 प. [A.D. 745—746]. Abi-l-Ghazi states that 450 years elapsed between
the flight of Kain and his cousin Nagiz and the reign of Bi-zanjar, and
calculating from these dates, their flight would have taken place about
322 years before the first year of the Muhammadan era, that is, about the
middle of A.D. 300, but other historians, as I have stated before, mention that
the Kaiat.and Nagiiz continued to dwell in Irganah-Kiin 400 years, and they
say that Bi-zanjar succeeded to the chieftain-ship, when in his fifteenth year, in

o

894 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

informants, the events of the Muhammadan territory, and

Rabj’-ul-Awwal, but no year is given. One work, however, the ‘‘ Shajarah-
ul-Atrak,” states that it was on the Ist of that month in the year 130 H.

Abii-!-Fagl, in the Akbar Namah, as before mentioned, says the Mughals
came out of Irganah-Kiin at the end of the reign of Nighirwan, but he died
in A.D. 579, about forty-three years previous to the year of the Flight or
Hijrak, but Abii-]-Ghazf gives neither month nor year. Fasih-f, on the con-
trary, states, that Alan-Kuwa gave birth to Bi-zanjar and his brothers in the
year 376 H. [middle of A.D. 986], and this, coupled with the statement in the
Majami’-ul-Khiyar, that the Kaiat and Nagiiz issued from Irganah-Kiin some
time afer H. 200 [A.D. 815—816], doubtless, is the correct date. Now, if we
add 400 to §79—the date of Niighirwan’s death, and suppose that the date of
Kaian and Nagiiz entering Irginah-Kin, instead of the date of leaving it, we
shall have 979 years, and, if we take 400 years from A.D. 986—the year men-
tioned by Fasib-f, namely 376 H., we shall have 407 years remaining, and
this seems, to me, to show that the flight of the two fugitives and their wives
took place about the middle of Niighirwan’s reign, and not their issuing from
Irganah-Kiin, which took place some time after H. 200 [A.D. 815—816],
and, if we allow the average of thirty years for each generation, and consider
that Bii-zanjar was the great grandson of Yal-dfiz or I-yal-diiz, we shall not be
far from the year 376 H. [A.D. 986].

More events are assigned to the period of Abii-Muslim than can be credited,
and this is the period our author assigns to the rise of the Shansabanfs of
Ghir. The date given by Fasib-f, for the birth of Bi-zanjar, is 186 years
previous to the death of the Chingiz Khan’s father, the eighth in descent from
Bii-zanjar, an average of little more than twenty years to each, but 130 H. for
the accession of Bi-zanjar gives an average, to the death of the Chingiz Khan's
father, of exactly fifty-four years to each reign. On the other hand Bi-zanjar
was third in descent from Yal-diiz or I-yal-diiz.

Bi-zanjar, who is styled Ka’an, framed laws and regulations, and divided
the Mughals into tribes as they still existed at the period when the different
authors | have named, with the exception of Abi-l-Ghazi, and Abi-l-Fagl,
wrote their accounts. The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir and a few other histories like-
wise state, that some of the Tattar chiefs and Amirs of other tribes which, for a
Jong period of time, had been ruled by their own chiefs, now submitted to Bi-
zanjar Ka’an’s authority, and acknowledged his suzerainty, but this, it must
be remembered, 15 a Mughal account. Bii-zanjar at his death, of which no
date is given, left two sons, Bika—V,y—also written Bikfa—Vy
Bikie— s¥y—and Tikai—,;—also written Tikia——and Tikie—yy
The latter had a son named Ma-Chin.

II, BOKA or BOKAE KHAN succeeded his father in the chieftain-ship, and,
dying, was succeeded by his son,

Ill. ZOTOMIN — ७4953 —or Zitimin—,¥ 3— Ziti-manfn— ८99
Zitiim Manin— ye o9395—as it is variously written, who was the father of nine
sons, one of whom, Kaidii, succeeded to the chieftain-ship. During the time
of Ziitiimin’s chieftain-ship hostilities broke out between the Jala-ir tribe, of the
Diral-gin branch of the Mughals, and the Khita-is. The Jali-irs had become
a very numerous tribe at this period, and amounted to about 70,000 families,
and had pitched their tents on the banks of the river Kaliir-An—,!, 58 The
Mughals and Khita-is were always at enmity, and hostilities continued per
petually to go on between them. At the period in question, the latter suddenly

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 895

the transmission of the Mughal sovereignty from one to

resolved to make a raid upon the Jala-irs, but on reaching the river found it
too deep to ford. They constructed a temporary bridge, crossed over in the
night, fell suddenly upon the Jala-irs, and almost annihilated them. Those
that escaped, and other portions of the tribe not then present, fled for shelter
into the parts where the other Mughal tribes dwelt.

This is the affair about which the Fanakati makes such a great blunder pre-
viously noticed in the account of Aghiiz Khan. He there stated, that, ‘‘ when
Oghiiz became firmly established in his sovereignty, and had secured his con-
quests, he sent a party from among his sons and kinsmen, and a considerable
army, into the east, into the land called, in the writer’s time, Mugbiilistan.
Fopr thousand years after, one among the Badghahs of the Khita-is moved
against them, crossed the river Kara-Miran in the night, fell upon them,
and slew the whole of them [the males] and made their wives and children
captives, and only two persons escaped—Kaian and Nagiiz—with their wives,
who fied to Iraganah-Kiin, where they and their posterity dwelt 400 years.”
It will easily be perceived what a muddle we have here: he has confounded
the two events, and makes ‘a sudden leap from Aghiiz Khan to the period of
the massacre of the Jala-irs. |

After the death of Zitiimin, his Khatin, Matilin—,,,!,.—or, as some
write it, Maniliin—..)5:e—an error probably of # for ‘—who was a talented
woman, with eight of her sons, and her numerous herds and flocks, took up
her residence in the retired tract of country—some say hill tract—named, but
somewhat doubtfully, Aligh or Ulish ^ पतं or Argi—_ 5! Ux)!l—but the first
name is also written Aliis or Uliis—U)\—and Koliish— +.) S—[Ulis-i-Aur-
gah or Orgah—the Ourga or Kuren of modern maps? in about Lon. 108°
Lat. 48°] whilst her ninth son, Kaidi, was absent. He had gone to
his uncle, Ma-Chin—some say, to his uncle’s son—to demand in marriage a
daughter of a kinsman of the sept of Diral-gin, who had become exceedingly
numerous, and who were also kinsmen of Ma-Chin. During Kaidii’s absence
some of the Jala-frs, overcome by the Khita-is, came and took up their
quarters among the # or tribe of Matiiliin and her sons, and, in a-
dispute arising between them, the Jala-irs slew her and her eight sons.
Kiidi sought his uncle’s assistance to avenge them, and a message was sent to
the heads of the Jali-irs demanding satisfaction for this outrage. This had
such an effect upon the chief men of the tribe, who were absent with their
people fighting against the Khita-is, that they slew seventy Jala-irs concerned
in the slaughter of Matiiliin and her sons, and sent their wives and
families, with many apologies, to Kafdii to do with them as he might think

ft. Kaidi kept them as slaves; and, from one generation to another, for a
long period, they continued the slaves of his family.

IV. KAip0—,a,4¥—KuAn—the sixth ancestor of the Chingiz Khan, through
the endeavours of Ma-Chin: succeeded to the chieftain-ship. He had three
sons, 1. Bae-Sunkar—z.s—or Bae-Sunghar— A ysb—who was the
eldest, and successor of Kaidi, 2. Jirkah-Langim—, CJ 43—also written
Jirkah-Likim—,sC) a,2—and even Kharkah-Langim—,,C) #—but this
last is probably a mistake of ¢ for ह , and 3. Jar-chin—,y-,\e—which
some write Jar-jIn—,»,l-—and Cha r-chin— ger, 'e—called Jaochin—er sl»
—by Abi-l-Ghazi. These two last brothers were the progenitors of
other tribes. Some few authors relate that the son of Kaidi’s second
son, named Hamanka or Hamanghi—les» or \ies—was carried off by the

896 श THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

another, might become known, and also that [such account]

Tattars, and given up to the Altan Khan, who put him to death, but this
appears to be incorrect, and to be the same circumstance which happened
to Kabal’s son, mentioned farther on, as it is unlikely Kabal himself would
have ventured to the Altan Khan’s court after one of his race had been thus
put to death.

Kaidi cut a canal, in his territory, from a river, and named it Jara-lim—
e2#—{D’Ohsson’s Karokol?] and thereby rendered that part exceedingly
prosperous and flourishing. He also went to war with the Jala-frs and over-
‘came them. At his death he was succeeded by his son,

V. BAE-SUNKAR—-—:—or BAE-SUNGHAR—d» .s—which the Fanakati
writes Bae-Sunkiir—, si» «sb-—-who made some conquests, and, dying, was
succeeded by his son,

VI. TOMINA-I— ८. -- 2150 written TOMNAH or TUMINAH —syi—
TOMINAE—sligegi—and TUMINAH—453 He was a powerful chieftain,
and added other territories of Turkistén to his own, brought the whole
of the Niriin or Nairiin tribes under his authority [this seems to indicate that
part of. them had been independent some time previously], and in all Turk-
istan [sic in 4795. but probably Mughalistin] there was no sovereign equal
in power tohim, He had two Khitiins, by one of whom he had seven, and,
by the other, two sons, who were twins. These twins were named Ka-jili—
gyet—also written Ka-chilf—_J,.4—and Kabal—JJs—also called Kaball

In consequence of a strange dream which Timin3-f had, when its interpre-
tation was told him, he made these two sons enter into a solemn compact,
whereby it was agreed between them, in their father’s presence, that the sove-
reignty should pertain to Kabal and his descendants, and the Deputyship or
Lieutenancy, and leadership of the troops to’Ka-jilf and his progeny. A
compact to this effect was drawn up in the I-ghiirf Janguage—which is said to
be the same as was in use in Tibbat, and written in what are called Tiingut
characters, signed by them both, and deposited in the treasury. =^
Ghazf does not mention this circumstance at all. Aghiiz Khan 15 said to
have made a similar arrangement with respect to his six sons—styled the
Bardz-ikf and Udz-ikf, but, when all perished but two persons, the compact
terminated.

If I mistake not, we shall find that the people named Budziak, who dwell
on the banks of the Borysthenes, W. of the Black Sea, are offshoots of the
Bardz-ikf division.

VII. In accordance with the above compact, on the death of his father,
KaBaL—J5—or KABALI—_ J5—KHAN succeeded to the chieftain-ship, and bis
brother Ka-jilf, to the leadership of the troops. The Mughals style Kabal Kbin
Alan-jik—od!'—or Alan-jik—d.2)'—which signifies “the cherisher of bis
people.” He isthe great grandfather of the Chingiz Khan, and of Ka-jalf, who
is the eighth ancestor of Amfr Timiir. All the tribes of the Mughals were in
unanimity and accord with him, and stood in awe of his power and ascendancy,
and the Altan Khan of Khitd sent an emissary to him and summoned him to
his Court. Those, however, who desire to glorify the Mughals, say, he ^ 0.
vited him to his Court, in a friendly manner,” but there is little doubt, even by
their own accounts, that the Mughals were dependent upon, and paid tribute to
the Altin or Altan Khans, as our author, Minhaj-ud-Din, likewise asserts.

Kabal, leaving his brother Ka-jili as his Deputy or Lieutenant, set out for

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM.’ 897

might remain a memorial of the writer of this TABAKAT—

Khita, and, having arrived there, was treated with honour and consideration ;
but, while in a state of intoxication, at an entertainment, Kabal committed an
offence which greatly displeased the Altan Khan, so he presented him with a
head-dress and beJt, and sent him away. The glorifiers of the Mughals say
‘a crown,” but crowns are not generally pre-ented at such times; and
Abi-l-Fazgl, not to offend his master’s vanity, and Abi-l-Gbhazi, who was
himself a Mughal, and descended from Kabal, leave out this little incident
altogether.

After Kabal had departed, the Altan Khan was blamed for letting him go
so easily, and messengers were sent to recall him. He refused to return, upon
which the Altan Khan sent a party after him to compel him todo so. They
came up with him whilst he was stopping in the camp of a friend named San-
jutf. Kabal was for going back with them, but his friend lent him a very swift
horse he possessed, and advised him to fly. This certainly does not bespeak
the powerful sovereign. He at once mounted and made off for his own yirat
orcamp. The party still pursued, but only found him after he had reached
his home and people. He then, with the assistance of Ka-jili and the tribe,
put the whole of the Altin Khan’s men to death. At this period also, the
eldest son of Kabal, whose name was Ukin or Ukain-Barkak ५५, ~55!—also
written Ukin-Barki—, ~55!—while out on an excursion, was fallen in with,
suddenly, by a tribe of the Tattar I-mak, their mortal enemies—some say Ukin-
Barkak was following the tracks of the Ghuzz Turk-mans at the time—who
carried him off to the Altan Khan, who put him to death. Here was a fresh
cause of feud between the already inveterate foes, the Mughal and Tattar
Turks.

Some few writers, as I have just noticed above, say he was called Hamangha
or Hamanka, thus showing that it was merely one person who was thus put to
death, and that those writers divided one event into two.

Besides Ukin-Barkak, Kabal had five other sons, two of whom were Kibilah
Khan and Bartan Bahadur, but the others are not named, and the eldest
of them, Kibilah, succeeded on the death of his father.

VIII. KUsBILaAH—alL,J—also written KUBILAH—s5 was a man of pro-
digious strength, immense stature, and great valour. ‘‘ His voice would pierce
the seventh heaven, and his grip was like that of a bear. He could take a
strong man, and with both hands bend him like a twig until his back broke ;
and one author states that he delighted in amusing himself in this pleasant way !
During the cold nights of winter he was wont to go to sleep naked before a
great fire made of the trunks of trees. He used not to care for the sparks of
fire which used to fly out and touch him, for, if he chanced to awake, he
would fancy the fleas had disturbed him, and he would scratch himself and go
off to sleep again!”

In order to avenge the death of his brother, Ukin Barkak, whom the Tattars
had carried off, and delivered over to the Altan Khan, who put him to death
by having him mounted upon a wooden ass and nailed to it with iron spikes,
and kept there until he expired, Kibilah led his forces against the Altan Khan,
and the Tattars, overthrew them [!], and carried off immense booty.

Kubilah Khan is not even named by Abii-]-Ghazi, whose work is much con-
fused here ; and, in several places, he relates events twice and even three times
over, and differently each time. |

This is the Katula of Beresine and Kutlah of Erdmann, derived from this:

898 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRL

Minhaj-i-Saraj. He confidently hopes that, during his life-

word incorrectly written with two dots over the third consonant instead of one
under. ।

IX. On the death of Kibilah Khan, his brother, BARTAN—,.U »—succeeded
to the authority. The title of Khan was dropped with respect to him, and the
new one of Bahadur was introduced. It is said that there was no one among
their rulers who was endowed with greater valour and wisdom, and hence that
title was assigned him. During his reign Ka-jillf died, and his son, Iradam-
chi, succeeded his father in his hereditary offices. ‘‘In the Turkish language,
Iradam or Iridam—psu\—they call a Mfrzi—a secretary or writer—to which
chi—_, [the shortened form of chiz—je] is affixed, indicating the actor or
instrument, when applied to Turkish words.” From this explanation, how-
ever, iridam may mean writing, not a writer. He used to be styled Barlis,
by Bartan, because he had no equal in valour, and hence he is known as
Iridam-chi, Barlas, but some say Barlas signifies a leader of troops. He had
twenty-nine sons, and the tribe of that name are so called after Iridam-chi.
The Bahadur, Bartin, had four sons, some say, séveral, one of whom suc-
ceeded him. = “^ Baghatur,” I beg to remark, is an utterly impossible title,
and shows how those, who cannot ‘‘dig out the gold,” are apt to vitiate the
metal—the pronunciation of names.

X. YassOKA—,..—the Bahadur, whose name is also written YASSUKI—
se~i—and YassOKAE— s%y-:—and, erroneously, Tasiiki—,.i—the most
competent and sagacious of Bartin’s sons, succeeded to the chieftain-ship of
the Mughal tribes, and ruled over 40,000 families. This last statement shows
plainly, however, that these persons, whom chroniclers make out to be such
mighty sovereigns, could only have ruled over a few tribes, or their power
must have dwindled considerably. The rulership over 40,000 families was
not considerable, since the Jala-irs alone were previously computed at 70,000.
Yassiika is the father of the Chingiz Khan, and, during his chieftain-ship,
lridam-chi, the Barlis, died, and his eldest son, Siightj-chi—_ 5+ .~—-whose
name is also written Siighi-jijan—. s* 5¢5.—signifying wise, succeeded to his
late father’s offices. He is the fifth ancestor of Amir Timiir, the statement of
Mr. प. H. Howorth, in his ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” notwithstanding.

On account of the ancient enmity which had come down from one generation
to another, and still more recent causes of hostility between the I-maks of the
Tattar and Mughal Turks, the Bahadur, Yassiika, in concert with Siighi-jijan
led an army against them, overthrew them, and made captive Tamii-chi, but
more correctly, Tamur-¢chi, which is also written Tamur-chin—the meaning
of which will be explained farther on in the account of the Chingiz Khan—and
Karbiika or Karbiigha, who were their rulers and chiefs, and plundered their
property and effects. After this the Bahadur, Yassiika, set out in great pomp,
for Dilin-Yildik—ss2'92 ysko—which is also written Dilin-Yuldik—
७३५५ ७१५० and, on reaching that place {which Petis de la Croix, in his
innocency, says—Life of ‘‘ Genghizcan the Great,” page 13—was “‘ his Couatry-
House, where he commonly resided” !], Yassiika’s Khatiin, who was named
Olin-Ankah or Angah—sce{ .,,))'—but whom the Fanakati and Fasib-i call
Ulin-Kijin—oes ७9 of the tribe of Ulkiinit, who was pregnant, gave birth
to a son, on the 2oth of Zi-Ka'dah, 549 H. [25th January, 1167 A.D.], and to
commemorate his victory over the Tattars, by Siighii-jijan’s advice, he named
that son Tamur-chi, afterwards the Chingiz Khan. Yassika, the Bahadur,
besides this son, had, by the same Khitiin, three other sons—Jiji Kasar—

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 899

time, he will be [considered worthy to be] remembered
with pious benediction, and, after his death, with invocation

5, eye —Kajbiin— oy2l or 1९21-७ ७- 81) Onji—,,4;| or Unchi—
esf3'—also written Otichkin— 5¢,!—said to mean the youngest son, and also
called U-tigin or Aw-Tigin—%,! and, by a second Khiatiin, a fifth son, who
was named Bilkiti—_j,s-)—likewise written Bilkiti—_J,0..—by others,
who constantly attended Tamur-chi.

When Yassika died in 562 H., his son Tamur-chf was in his thirteenth year.
About the same time Siighi-jijan also died, and the Nii-yan, Karachar, his son,
was also young in years, and the Niiriin or Nairiin tribe—their own—forsook
them and went over to the Taijitt, and other tribes.

At this period the tribes of the Mughals, Tattars, and Turks, were ruled by
seventy-one chiefs pr bakims, each of whom ruled over one or two tribes ; and
this shows very clearly what I have before stated, that the chiefs I have been
here giving an account of were not supreme reders over the whole of the Mughal
tribes even, but only over a certain portion of them, and that only a portion
of the Nii or Nairiin division of them were under the sway of the Bahadur,
Yasstika.

I have now brought down, in an abstract form, an account of the Turks,
and the Tattar and Mughal I-maks, according to the accounts compiled by
command of the Mughal sovereigns, and contained in the Histories I have
named at page 869, to the point where our author begins his account of
Tamur-chi, afterwards the Chingiz Khan. I have done it chiefly because
be has confused events, and with respect to their earliest history he is in
some error, and states contrary to all other authors who have written on the
Mugbals ; but I also do so because European writers go on floundering and
blundering with respect to these people, the descendants of ४205, while, at the
same time, the matter lies in a nutshell. One of the latest specimens of this
kind is contained in the ‘‘T1MES,” whose special correspondent, writing from
“ Therapia,” Nov. 7th, 1876, says: ^^ The conglomeration of Eastern races,
the Zurks and Arabs, detest their enforced unity with their 7uranian op-
pressors, their very existence culminating with a common feeling of unextin-
guishable hatred for the Osmanli.” So the writer appears to have made the
wonderful discovery that the *Usmanli Turks are not Turks but Tiranfans,
and so, by the same logic, these Turks are not Tiranfans. Who knows?
perhaps he has discovered that they are Aryans, or even ‘*Tartars,” as some
of the newspaper philosophers have lately discovered.

The Yarkand Mission [to the ruler of the State of Kashghar] made some
similar ethnological discoveries in that part of Central Asia, of which the
following is one specimen out of many. At page 81 of the ‘“REPoRT,” we
are told respecting ‘‘ the urban population,” that they consist of ‘‘ two typical
forms,”’ one of which, ‘‘the Mongolian,” contains ‘‘the Manjhu, the Moghol or
Mongol, the Kalmak, the Kirghiz, the Noghay, the Kapchak, and the Uzéaé,
All of whom are designated 7aréar, together with the Kara Khitay, the Khitay,
and the Tungani, who are excluded from the catalogue though of the same
stock,” This may be termed, confusion worse confounded, but two pages
farther on we are informed that ‘‘all that can be distinctly stated 15 that Zartar
blood predominates with a greater or less admixture of the 7xuré element,”
&८., &c.

The monkish travellers found, centuries ago, how incorrect it was to style
Mughals by the name of Tartars. De Plano Carpini [A.D. 1246] says he and

900 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI,

of pardon, in the world-illumining opinion of the Sove-
reign of the people of Islim—-NAsIR-UD-DIN, MAHMOUD

SHAH—and other readers of his work.’
नैः नैः नै | नैः नैः * *

FIRST INROAD OF THE TURKS OF KARAH KHITA.

Trustworthy persons have related after this manner, that
the first irruption of the Turks was that the tribes of
Karah Khita issued from the territory of Chin and land of
the East, and came out upon the confines of Kaialik? and
Bilasaghin, and withdrew their allegiance from the sove-
reign of Tamghaj,* and made the frontier tracts of Islam
their dwelling-place, and their grazing-grounds. On
agreeing to pay certain fixed imposts, for pasturage, to the
Afrasiyabi Maliks,‘ who were Musalman sovereigns, of the

his party ‘‘ came to the land of the Munghals, whom Europeans call Tartars.”
Rubruquis also [A.D. 1253] says, ‘‘near them [the Mughals] are the Tartars,
by which name the Muals cannot endure to be called.”

Turks consist of those branches and offshoots from Turk and his descendants
before the time of Tattar Khan and Mughal Khan, who continued, and con-
tinue to retain the name of Turks, and of the two latter, who gave name to the
two I-maks of Tattar and Mughul. Both are Turks, by descent, but Tattars
are not Mughals, nor are Mughals Tattars.

1 Here our author proceeds to give an account of the various predictions
respecting the end of the world, which the irruption of the Mughals prognosti-
cated, but which I need scarely insert here.

2 Kaialik—j3\s—or Kaialik—jdls—the last letter of which may be also
written with —gh—which is interchangable with 5—k—namely, Kaialigh oF
Kaialigh, is 5 € correct name. In nearly every copy of our author’s work the
copyists have written the word Kabalik—5)\—with— Y~— instead of—y—
which is incorrect, as at page 154, These two letters which, in the middle न
beginning of a word, differ in one point only, are very liable to be written one
for the other in 795. by ignorant scribes. In the oldest St. Petersburg 4/5.;
instead of Bilas&-ghun, the name of the city is written with an extra—o—¢—
Biladsa-ghiin—.¢\.53,—as will be again noticed farther on.

Rubruquis describes Kaialik, under the name of Koylak. He says it was 2
great trading city in his time, and had three idol temples, the doors of which
were always open to the south.

3 This country will be found referred to at page 933.

4 At page 154 our author says ‘‘ they solicited Sultan Sanjar to assign them
Iands,” but, although expressed in different words, the same thing, in fact,
is there meant as is here related. Sanjar was the suserain, and the Afrasiyabi
Sultans or Maliks were subject to him, as is plainly indicated from the follow-
ing account of them. Nothing is more dangerous or more likely to bring 3
writer into trouble than a superficial knowledge of Oriental authors derived
from translations often made from a single and imperfectly written ALS.

It will probably be well to give, however, a brief account of the A frasiyab)

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. gol

posterity of Afraisiyab—the descendants of the I-lak

Maliks, because our author, both here and in his account of the Samanis, Saljiiks,

and Khwarazmi Sultans, occasionally confuses their names in such a manner as

to puzzle and bewilder his readers. Such brief account of them will also tend
to make the preceding account of the Turks clearer, and throw light upon the
previous account of the Khwarazmi dynasty and of the Gir Khans farther on,
and correct some crude theories recently put forth.

The Muhammadan writers make continual mention of the Turks and infidels

of Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan, from the time that the first ’Arab—Hakam, `

son of ’Umr, in the Khilafat of Mu’awiyah, drank of the waters of the Amiiah,
and ’Abd-ullah, son of Ziyad, was the first to cross it, but those writers give
no consecutive accounts of the Afrasiyabi Maliks until they come down to the
year 367 H. It must also be bome in mind that the name of Afrasiyab does
not occur in the Turkish traditions, although the 'Ajamis style him ‘the
Turk.”

The first person. with whom most Muhammadan writers begin this dynasty
is ८८ Bughra Khan, [No. IV. in this account] whose Musalman name was
Abii-Mus4-i-Hariin, and his title, Shihab-ud-Daulah, and who, in 380 H.,
defeated Mardawanj, the general of the Sam4&ni forces, near Samrkand.
Although this Bughra Khan, ‘‘the Turk,” is said to have been the son of
Suliman—whom some also style by the title of the I-lak Khan—son of the
I-lak Khan, the meaning of which will be presently given, they do not include

these two personages, among those rulers, although the latter, probably, `

brought the dynasty into greater notice, and splendour.

A few writers, however, including Abi-Sa’id-i-’ Abd-ul-Haiy, son of Zuhak,
a native of Gardez in Karman of the present Afghanistan—begin somewhat
earlier, and, accordingly, I shall follow them. On reaching the time of the
Bughra Khan, Abi Musa-i-Hariin, son of Suliman, the different accounts
agree. The Gardezi wrote about 441 H., in the reign of Sultan ’Abd-ur-
Rashid, son of Mahmid-i-Sabuk-Tigin, the seventh of the Sultans of Ghaz-
nin, and that writer is, therefore, a little before Abi-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki, who
wrote in the reign of Farrukh-zad, the eighth of the Sultans of that line, and
who died in 470 H.

I. SaTuK-KvujJau, written Satiik— J,il.—by one author, was an infidel, and
the ruler of Turkistan ; but, froma remarkable dream which he had one night
he, in the morning, became a convert to Islam, and induced his people to
embrace it also. This happened probably about the year 315 or 320 H., but
no dates are given. In Alfi he is called Satuk-Karachiar.

There.is a History, so-called, of this personage, who, in recent times, has
been regarded as a saint, and a tomb and masjid have been raised over him.
The account is written by the Shaikh Najm-ud-Din, in Persian, and translated
into Turki ; but, as might be expected, it is history burlesqued. It is quoted by
Surgeon-Major Bellew, C.S.I., who was attached to the late Kash ghar Mission,
who has composed a ^^ History of Kashghar, from the Zaécéti Nésari,” etc.,
etc., which may be styled history in chaos. Shaikh Najm-ud-Din causes
Hazrat Satuk to be born in 333 H., and to die in 430 H., at the age of ninety-
six years. Unfortunately for such history, the IXth sovereign of the race, and
the eighth or ninth in descent from the Satuk in question, was reigning over
Turkistin including Kashghar in 430 H. The Doctor, however, ‘‘ would
identify” Satuk with, whom he calls, ‘‘ Iylik Mazi—as he is usually styled
[I-lak-i-Mazi, probably—the past, or late I-lak, or of days of yore, as he is

9०2 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

[1211], of days of yore‘—and who were subject to the
5 This is the I-lak-i-Mazi referred to in para. 4, of the preceding note.

always called in the Persian, and who was not an ‘‘ Uighur,’’], son of the
Bughra Khan, who invaded Bukhara, where he died in the reign of the Amir
Said Abul Kasim,” etc., etc. The reign of the Samini ruler, the Amir-i-
Sa’id, or August Amir, Abi-]-Kasim-i-Nib, will be found at page 45 of this
Translation, and, farther on, when and where Shihab-ud-Daulah, Abi-Misi--
Hiriin, entitled the Bughra Khan, died, which event did not take place st
Bukhara, neither did his dominions extend to the Caspian, but, on the west,
adjoined the Sdm4ni empire.

The Doctor, in several places, states that the Kashghar territory, “from
occupation,” was styled, ‘‘ Mogholistan, or the country of the Moghol,” bat
this is wholly erroneous ; and no History will show that Turkistan was ever
styled Mughalistan, which Mirzi Haidar, the Mughal Prince, and others
distinctly describe, as may be seen in the note at page 889.

The Doctor tells us that the name of the city—Kasgh ghar—only ‘‘ came into
use under the rule of the Chaghtay Khans,’’ as referring to the territory, but
this is also erroneous, as Histories written before their time sufficiently prove,
and as may be seen at page 133 of this Translation. -

II. After Satuk-Kiijah’s death, of which likewise no date is given, his son,
MusA, succeeded him as ruler. The date of his death is not stated.

III. On the death of Musa, his grandson, Abi-Nagr-i-Ahmad, son of ’Alf,
son of Musa, son of Satuk-Kiijah, succeeded to the sovereignty, and became
famous under the title of the 1-LAK-KHAN. I-lak, in the Turkish language, is
said to mean ‘‘ prudent in counsel ;” but some writers say that it is the title
by which the rulers of Yughma, that is to say, Turkistan, who are the lowest
of the rulers of Tiiran, are known; and that, in comparison with Khan, it
merely signifies a chieftain, or leader, the ruler of a tribe. The poet, Abi-l-
Farah is also quoted, to show that a difference exists between the two titles, by
the following couplet ~

# gle y eth! lols 4७ त 50 je ५७ lode “AS ७५३ ५19

This I-lak Khan bore the Musalmin title of Shams-ud-Daulah, and is evi-
dently the same who entered Maward-un-Nahr from Turkistan in 367 H., just
eleven years before Alan-Kuwa gave birth to the three sons of light.

IV. We now come to §Shihab-ud-Daulah, BUGHRA KHAN, whose nam
was Abii Miisd-i-Hariin, son of Suliman, son of the I-lak Khan, and no doubt
the latter is one and the same person with the one previously mentioned
above, No. ITI.

The Bughra Khan entered Maward-un-Nahr, from Kashghar, the city of
which name was his capital, the first time, in 372 H. Subsequently, he was
induced to invade it again, by Abi ’Ali-i-Simjir, and Fayik-i-Khasah, the
traitor nobles of Amir Ni, son of Mansiir, the Simanf. [See their dynasty,
page 45, and note 5, where, from the similarity of names, some slight confusion
arises through our author calling Hariin [Abi-Miisa-i-Harin], ‘*I-lak Khan,”
instead of which, the I-lak Khan was his grandfather’s title.] On comparing
our author’s statement, at page 51, with the account of the Gardezf, I find he
confirms that author’s statement by mentioning ^" Amfr Abii-l-Hasan, I-lak-i-
Nasr, son of Ali, drother of the Great Khan,” which evidently refers to the
first I-lak Khan [No. III.] here mentioned, viz. :—Abii-Nasr-i-Ahmad, son of
"All, son of Miisd, son of Satuk-Kiijah.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 903
Saljiiki Sultans, they occupied those plains and pasture

During the reign of Abii-Miisa-i-Hariin, Shihab-ud-Daulah, son of Suliman,
son of the I-lak, the Bughra Khan, in 375 of the u., Saljiik, son of Lukman,
and his family and dependents, entered Mawara-un-Nahr from Kara-Khita for
the sake of pasturage. In this same year a wonderful bird was seen to rise
daily, for three days in succession, from the sea of ` पात्रा), which was said
to portend evil to Islim; and indeed, in the following year, 376 H., & 1711.
Kuwa gave birth to the three sons ‘‘of the mysterious light,” as related in the
Mughal ‘tradition, one of whom was Bi-zanjar, the great ancestor of the
Chingiz Khan. The Bughra Khan was subsequently induced once more to
invade Mawara-un-Nahr by ’Abi-Ali-i-Simjir and Fayik-i-Khagah, the traitor
nobles of Amir Nih; and, in the year 380 H., he entered Mawara-un-Nahr and
defeated Mardawanj, the general of Amir Nib, in the vicinity of Samrkand.
Fayik also became subject to him, and was allowed to hold Isfanjib. In 382
H., accompanied by Fayik, he appeared before Bukhara, entered it in Rabi’-
ul-Awwal, and Amir Nib fled. Whilst at Bukhara, the Bughra Khan was
attacked with a painful disorder, and set out to return into Turkistan, but death
overtook him on the way in 383 H. ,

Bughra in the Turkish language signifies a stallion kept for breeding pur-
poses, but, more particularly, a two humped stallion camel.

The Bughra Khan was a just and well-disposed monarch, the friend of
learning and the learned, and ruled over the vast tract of country extending
from Kash ghar to Chin. He was succeeded by his brother’s son, the I-lak
Khan, Abi-l-Hasan-i-Nagr, son of Alf.

प, The I-Lak KHAN, Abi-l-Hasan-i-Nagr, son of ’Ali, brother of Harin-
i-Bughra Khan [this is the person our author mentions at page §1], marched
from Uz-gand, and acquired predominance over Bukhara on the 1oth of Zi-
Hijjah, 389 H., seized Amir ’Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuh, the Samani, and sent
him away to Uz-gand—w5jy—in Farghanah [a totally different place from
Organj—_5)y~as stated in note १, page 52, through an error of the copyist
in writing , for ;—and from Gur-ganj— i(S—of Khwarazm], and took
possession of the whole of Mawara-un-Nahr. He again came to Samrkand
in 391 H.; and, in 393 H., Abi-Ibrahim-i-Muntagir, the last of the Samanis,
with the aid of the Ghuzz, defeated the I-lak Khan, and compelled him
to retire. With the help of the Ghuzz tribe, under their Mihtar, or Chief,
Beghi, Abi-Ibrahim re-took Bukhara, and re-subdued all Mawara-un-Nahr.
It was but a temporary advantage however, although the I-lak Khan was a
second time defeated by the confederates, for he returned soon after with a
great host, and subsequently completely overthrew Abi-Ibrahim in 395 H.,
who, in the meantime, had been deserted by the Ghuzz tribe. -

In Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 391 H., it is stated that an envoy came from the I-lak
Khan to Sultan Mahmid-i-Sabuk-Tigin, proposing that all the territories of
Mawara-un- Nahr should appertain to him, and all Madiim-un-Nahr[_y5)! pyo—
1 have never noticed this term applied to the cis-Amiiiah or cis-Oxus countries
but in one oldauthor: I shall refer to this again farther on] to Mahmiid. Other
writers state that a treaty to this effect was entered into between them in 396
H. There may possibly have been two treaties, the latter modified.

Whilst Mabmid-i-Sabuk-Tigin was at Multan, after taking it in 396 H.,
intimation reached him that the Turks had broken the treaty, crossed the
Amiiah in great numbers under Subaghi-Tigin, and had penetrated as far even
as Hirat and Nighapir, but, that they had been driven back, and all Madum-

904 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

lands ; and, being few in point of numbers, they there

un-Nahr cleared of them. In the following year, Sultan Mahmiid marched to
Balkh, in order to avenge this attack ; and the I-lak Khan assembled 40,000
horse in Mawara-un-Nahr, and crossed the river to encounter him. A battle
took place in the plain a few miles from Balkh, and a charge of elephants
decided the fate of the battle, and the I-lak Khan and his ally, Kadr
Khan—his brother, probably— ruler of Khutan, were completely routed, on
Sunday, the 22nd of Rabi’-ul-Akhir, 398 H., many prisoners were taken,
and, in crossing the Amiiiah, the I-lak Khan lost a great number of his
followers who were carried away. by the current and drowned. The Khin
nourished the hope of revenge, but Time did not permit him to gratify it, and
he died in 403 H.

VI. Sharf-ud-Din-i-TuGHAN KHAN, his brother, succeeded to the throne
of Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan. Inthe Turkish language tughan signifies a
species of hawk—[é2]—the Hawk or Falcon Khan. In the year 408 H.,
[began 29th May, 1017, A.D., old style], his dominions were invaded from the
side of Chin, by a vast host of infidel Turks, who had been displaced from
their former localities, to the amount of 300,000 éargahs—felt tents so-called
by the Turks—and equivalent to that number of families. This must have been
about the time of the Mughal ruler, Zitiimin—No. III., at page 894—which
see. They certainly were not the people called Kara Khita-i, or ^^ Kitan”
of European writers, subsequently to be noticed. Tughin Khan, although
suffering from illness at the time, sallied out against them ; and, after much
fighting, drove them back again. Vast booty, and a great number of captives
fell into the hands of the Musalman Turks [and their Musalmin allies ‘J.
Tughan Khan died in the same year, and was succeeded by his brother.

VII. Abii-l-Mugaffar-i-ARSALAN KHAN—also styled Ul-Asam, or “the
deaf” brother of Tughan, succeeded him in the sovereignty. In 410 H., he is
said to have fought a battle with Sultan Mahmiid-i-Sabuk-Tigin,and was over-
thrown; and, during his retreat across the Jihiin or Amiiah, most of his troops
were drowned, the incident which happened after the defeat in 398 H., above
referred to. Mahmiid, however, was engaged during part of this year in his
expedition in Hind. The date of Arsalan Khan’s death is not given ; but, in
408 H., a princess of the family of the I-lak Khan, who had previously been
betrothed to Prince Mas’iid, Mahmiid’s son, arrived at Balkh on her way to
Ghaznin.

VIII. Kapr KHAN, son of Yisuf, son of the Bughra Khan-i-Harin, son
of Suliman—the Gardezi, calls him Yisuf-i-Kadr Khan, and states that he
was one of the cousins of the I-lak Khan [No. V ?], and who had been made
governor, on his part, over Samrkand—succeeded to the sovereignty on the
death of Arsalan Khan. He was a prince of great justice and goodness. The
Gardezi states that, in 415 H., Mahmiid-i-Sabuk-Tigin reached Balkh with
the intention of crossing the Jihiin into Mawara-un-Nahr, to deliver the Musal-
mans from the tyranny of ’Ali-Tigin, ruler of Bukhara, and one of the Afrasi-
yabi Khins, upon which, Yiisuf-i-Kadr Khan, who was the Salar of all Turk-
istan and the great I-lak Khan, hearing of Mabmiid’s having crossed, lef
Kashghar and came to Samrkand. He then proceeded to meet Mabmiid
[see pages 116—118] ; and they entered into a fresh treaty. ’Ali-Tigin [this
is the person referred to at page 121, which see],hearing of this, fled to the
desert [the steppes E. of the Sihiin]. Fasih-i, however, says this took place in
419 H. It was at this time that Mahmiid seized Isra’il, the Saljiik, and sent

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 905

continued to dwell, without violence or disturbance, in
peace and tranquillity.

him off to Hind [K4linjar in the Panjab}. In 416 H. [Fasib-f, 419 H.];
Jaghar Beg, Abii Sulim4n-i-Da’iid [also called Da’id-i-Jaghar Beg. See
page 116. Here are some more isdéfats showing how they are used, and the
necessity of their use], son of Tughri or Tughril Beg, son of Mika’il, son of
Saljiik [the Gardezi styles the Saljiiks Turks and Turk-mans indiscriminately],
broke out, left the Bukhara territory and the Sughd of Samrkand, and retired
into Khwarazm [see page 121], with the consent क Sultin Mahmid, but not
the approbation of his ministers.

In 417 H., envoys came to Ghaznin, to Sultan Mahmiid, from Kaya [७]
Khan, and Bughra Khan, requesting a matrimonial alliance. Mahmiid replied
that he was a Musalman and they were infidels, and that it was not the custom
to give the sisters and daughters of Musalmans to infidels, but that, if they
would embrace Islam, the®matter would be considered. These chiefs were
Kadr Khin’s brothers. Subsequently it was agreed that Zainab, the Sultan’s
daughter, should be betrothed to the son of Kadr Khan, who was then styled -
Yughan-Tigin, and afterwards took the title of Bughra Khan, and a daughter of
Kadr Khan was betrothed to Muhammad, but subsequently to Mas’iid, Sultan
Mahmiid’s eldest son. Kadr Khan died in the year 423 H., and was succeeded
by me

IX. ARSALAN KHAN, son of the Bughra Khin [No. IV.] who was, at
that period, Lord of Kashghar, Khutan, Khujand, and Bilasd-ghiin, now
succeeded to the sovereignty, but, between him and his own brother, Bughra,
hostility arose, and the latter overcame Arsalan, and made him captive. Arsalan
is the person to whom Sultan Mas’iid of Ghaznin sent a despatch after the
battle of Dandankan, mentioned in note >, page 94.

X. The BuGHRA KHAN, son of Kadr Khan, who was Lord of Banki, or
वभव, and Sinjab [Isfanjab or Sfanjab, as it is also written. See page 28], after
having overcome his brother, Arsalan, became absolute ruler. The mention of
these provinces and countries sufficiently indicates the extent of country under
the sway of the Afrasiyabi Maliks. The Bughra Khan nominated his eldest
son, Ja’far-Tigin, his heir, on which the mother of Ibrahim, the youngest
son, poisoned the Bughra Khan, together with some of his Amirs, and also
put an end to Arsalan Khan, who was still in confinement, in 439 H.

Bughra, also written with G for g—Bukra, is the same well-known
Turkish name that is turned into Bagora Khan by STEWART in his "^ History
of Bengal,” and Baikara by others,

XI. InpRAHiM KHAN, son of the Bughra Khan, succeeded to the sovereignty
after the murder of his father. His mother sent him against Binal-Tigin [one
author has Nial-Tigin], who used to act rebelliously, and, in the encounter
which ensued, Ibrahim was killed, and the family of the Bughra Khin[No. X ],
in the direct line, terminated with him. The year of his death is not mentioned.

In 453 or 454 H., Sultan Alb-Arsalan, the Saljiik, undertook the subjugation
of Turkistin, but had to return from the frontiers of Kashghar and Bilasa-ghin
to the aid of the Khalifah. See page 134.

XII. Abi-l-Mugaffar-i-TAF-KAJ [५७.४०] KuAN, son of another Ibrahim,
son of Nasr, who was likewise of the house of Afrasiyab, and whose father had
withdrawn from the world, succeeded to the sovereignty. He had previously
been ruler of Samrkand, under the. sovereign. He died of paralysis in 460 H.

XIII. Shams-ul-Mulk [some Mulik] the KHAKAN, Nasr, son of Taf-kaj

3M

5०6 ` THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI-
When the period of repose continued for a prolonged |

Khan, succeeded his father, and the daughter of Sultan Alb-Arsalan, the
Saljak, was married to him, and the daughter of Isa, his brother, was married
to Alb-Arsalan’s son, afterwards Malik Shah. The Khakan, Shams-ul-Mulk,
died in Zi-Ka’dah, 472 H.

XIV. Kuizr KHAN, brother of the Khakan, Nasr, succeeded to the throne,
but very soon after died.

XV. AuMAD KHAN, son of Khizr Khan, succeeded to his father, but used
to act in such a manner that Sultan Malik Shah had to march into Mawara-un-
Nahr, in 482 H. to coerce him. He defeated him, and sent him away to Isfa-
han, to the care of his aunt, Turkan Khitiin, Alb-Arsalin’s daughter. After a
time Sultan Malik Shih restored him to the sovereignty ; but in 488 H. he
was put to death on being accused of heresy. The Rauzat-us-Safa states that
Sanjar gave the throne to Ahmad’s son, Nasr by name. ~

XVI. MAHMUD KHAN, uncle’s son of Ahmad Khin, succeeded to the
throne of Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan ; and, in the year 490 प.) Dabkili—
(.d9#2]—i-Tughan Khan, son of Kara Khan, marched an army against him and
slew him. Who he was does not appear.

XVII. Kapr KHAN, son of तणा Khan, son of Ahmad Khan, succeeded
him. In 495 H. he became ambitious of possessing himself of part of Kdhura-
sin, and invaded it. In Sha’ban of that year he was encountered by Sultan
Sanjar [this was long before Sanjar became supreme ruler of the अथाप
empire] near Tirmiz, and was defeated, taken prisoner, and put to death. He
is called Kunduz Khin elsewhere. See note 8, page 147.

XVIII. MUHAMMAD KHAN [some, by mistake, call him Ahmad Khan]
to whom the title of ARSALAN was assigned, son of Suliman by a sister of
Sultan Sanjar, son of Da’id, son of the Bughra Khan [No X.], and who, for
a long time, had been an exile from Mawara-un-Nahr, and dwelling at Marw,
at the Court of that Sultan, succeeded to the sovereignty in 495 H.

In 523 H., Sayyid Ashraf, the ’Alawi, and the men of Samrkand, slew
Nasr, the son of Arsalan Khan, and openly rebelled against him. Arsalan
Khan called upon his uncle, Sultan Sanjar, for aid, who set out in person with
an army to succour him. Before Sanjar reached Samrkand, Arsalan Khan had
suppressed the outbreak ; and he despatched an emissary to make apologies to
the Sultan [not wishing him to come seemingly]. This conduct did not
please Sanjar, and he continued his advance towards Samrkand. Arsalan
Khin was also accused of sending persons to assassinate the Sultan. The
latter invested Samrkand, took it in 524 प्त.) imprisoned him, and sent him off
to Marw, to his mother, Sanjar’s sister.

Muhammad-i-Arsalan Khan, son of Suliman, was restored to the sove-
reignty of Maward-un-Nahr by his uncle, Sultan Sanjar, in 526 H. Most of
the authors I have taken this account from style him Muhammad as before,
and one. calls him Mahmid [his son], but Fasih-i, and some others, distinctly
call him Ahmad—and the context proves it correct—[see note 5, page 147],
but they give 530 H. as the date of his restoration. This can scarcely be
correct, as his son succeeded in 526 H. What subsequently became of him is
not stated, nor is the year of his death recorded.

The Tarikh-i-Alfi, the accounts in which are generally derived from the
best authorities, without mentioning who he was or where he ruled, states that
Kadr Khan invaded Mawara-un-Nahr, at the head of a large army, with the

object of conquering it and Turkistan, and that Arsalan Khan, Muhammad,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. | 907

time, and their offspring and -posterity had become nume-

unable to cope with him, fled into Khurasin to Sultan Sanjar for protection,
and gave the Sultan a daughter in marriage. Sultan Sanjar marched into
Mawara-un-Nahr, overthrew Kadr Khan, put him to death, and restored
Arsalan to his throne again.

After a short time, a number of the Khians of the Turks became hostile to
Arsalan ; and, unable to resist them, he again fled to Sanjar for help, and
again the Sultan restored him, after punishing his enemies. The soldiery of
Arsalan Khan were principally of the two septs of Karlighiah Turks, and
Ghuzz ; and the former, having been intrigued with, and gained over by
Ashraf, the ’Alawi, son of Muhammad-i-Abi-Shuja’, the Samrkandi, to
combine with Nasr Khan, Arsalan’s son, the ’Alawi incited Nasr Khan to
dethrone his father. Arsalan Khan gained intimation of the plot, and forth-
with put his son, and the ’Alawi to death. After this, Arsalan regarded the
Karlighiah with hostility, and they looked upon him with dread. At last,
they combined to destroy him ; and Arsalan had again to fly to Sultan Sanjar.
He marched towards Samrkand to quell this outbreak, upon which, the Kar-
lighiah took to flight and retired to the mountains. Another version of these
events is, that Arsalin Khan had located 12,000 kharghas, or felt tents of
Karliighs, equal to that number of families, on his eastern frontier to protect it
from the incursions of the Chinese [Khita-is], but he had latterly ill-treated
them, and they had left his dominions, and retired into the territory of Bila-
Saghiin, the particulars respecting which will be found in the account of the
Gir Khans, farther on.

Sultan Sanjar entered Samrkand, and remained there a short time. It was
at this period that, while occupied in the chase, the Sultan perceived a band
of armed men lying in ambush in the Shikar-gah, or preserve. These were
Seized ; and, they having confessed that Arsalan Khan had sent them thither,
the Sultan proceeded to invest the ingrate within the walls of Samrkand, cap-
tured him, and sent him away to Balkh, where he died. Some say his death
was natural, but others, that the Sultan had something administered to him.

During this reign, in the year 522 H., Aghiiz [391], the Chini, with a host
more numerous than ants or locusts, invaded the territory of Kashghar. The
Wali of Kashghar, Ahmad, son of Hasan, collected his forces to repel the
invaders. The two armies met within the frontiers of Kashghar, and an
obstinate battle ensued, which ended in favour of Ahmad.

Who Abmad was is not mentioned, but he was, doubtless, one of the
Afrasiyabi family, subordinate to Arsalan as head of the house, and has,
evidently, from the discrepancies above noticed, been taken for one of the
sovereigns of this dynasty.

Aghiz, the Chini, after the slaughter of great part of his army, took
to flight ; and, after he had reached his capital, the name of which is not
given, died of grief and chagrin. ‘‘The Gir Khin,” according to the same
authority, “became his successor over the country of Chin,” as will be
presently mentioned.

XIX. HasAn-Ticin, son of Ali, son of ’Abd-ul-Mimin [410 has, son
of ’Abd-ul-Mimin, son of ’Ali], famous under the name of Abi-l-Ma’ali,
Kulij-i-Tamghaj, who likewise was of the same family, was, by command of
Sultin Sanjar, raised to the sovereignty, but he died very shortly after.

XX. Rukn-ud-Din, MAHMOpD KHAN, Arsalan’s son, and great nephew
of Sanjar, who is mentioned in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh and in Alfi as the

3M 2

9०8 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
rous, they began to act in a refractory manner. The

KHAKAN, Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmid, son of Muhammad, son of the Bagbri
Khan [No. X. Yafa’i says he was his great grandson], with the support of
Sultan Sanjar was raised to the throne in 526 H., and, in Ramagan 53! H., be
encountered the Giir Khan of. the Kara Khita-i in battle, within the limits of
Khujand, but was defeated, and compelled to retire to Samrkand. Sultan
Sanjar advanced soon after to his assistance with his forces, but he also was
overthrown [in 534 H., A.D. 1134. Guzidah and others say in 535 H. Jami'-at-
Tawarikh says in 536 H.] by the Khita-fs under At Khan and Bantko, as
has been already stated under Sanjar’s reign, at page 154, but, since that
portion of this work was translated, some further particulars, tending to
throw light on this subject, will be found in the notice of the Gur Kbans
farther on.

Rashid-ud-Din, in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, farther states, that Sulfan
Itsuz [our author’s Utsuz], Ehwarazm, Shah, in 547 H., marched against
Sak-nak—also written Sagh-nak, which lies north of Utrar, and other tracts,
and also against Kamfl-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, son of Mabmid, the Wali or
ruler of णात्‌, who fled to Ridbar. Who he was is not said, but he is
evidently one of the Afrasiyab family. He was induced to return, but was
put to death ; and Sultan Itsiz annexed पाते, which he gave to his own so,
I-yal-Arsalin. The year above-mentioned is that in*which the Ghuzz acquired
such predominance, but, according to some writers, and more correctly, the
year previous to Sanjar’s falling into their hands.

Mahmiid Khan, forsaking country and possessions, after the victory of the
Kara-Khita-is, in 534 H., came into Khurasin along with Sultan Sanjar, and
continued at his Court ; and, subsequently, after the Sultan was taken capuve
by the Ghuzz, he was raised to the sovereignty of Khurasan, as a temporary
measure, After his uncle’s escape out of their hands, and his death soon
after, Mahmiid, in 552 H., for a time, again obtained the nominal sovereignty
over Khurasan, but, after a stormy reign of five years and a half, in 557 H., be
_ was deprived of his sight by Sanjar’s slave—Mu’ayyid-ud-Din, the A-inab-dir
[See page 180], and died in 558 H.

XXI. TAMGHAJ KHAN, son of Muhammad Khan [but whether this is the
same Muhammad, who is called Ahmad, and dethroned and again restored to
sovereignty by Sultan Sanjar, is not stated], became Wali of Mawara-un-Nabr
after Sultan Sanjar’s imprisonment by the Ghuzz, but he did not possess much
grandeur or power, and his reign was a very stormy and agitated one. He
was tributary to the Kara Khita-is, who continued to hold sway in those
parts, after Sanjar’s captivity, until finally driven out and expelled by Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shih.

Tamghaj Khan was at length slain and his corpse cast into the desert by
the Karluks or Karliighs. This happened in 551 H., some say, in 550 H.

One author refers to a Tamghaj or Taghmaj Khan, named Ibrahim, son
of Al-Husain [Al-Hasan 7}, as one of the Khans of Turkistan, who, when he
became absolute, came to Samrkand, and dwelt there many years. He was
a great patron of ’Ulama and other learned men, and wrote Kur’ans which
were sold, and the prices realized therefrom he subsisted on. He must be one
and the same with the above, from the mention of Samrkand, although there
is a discrepancy with respect to his father’s name, and he too had a son, Kbit
Khan, who is said to have been a Sultan of great pomp. Probably, Nos. X-
and XI. are referred to.

'

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. go9

period of the Sanjari empire had nearly reached its termi-

I may also add that Tamghaj, the name of which often appears in this
Section, is a territury of Turkistan, as well as a name given to rulers, and that
some writers state that it is the name—dynastic name, probably—of the
sovereigns of Tibbat and Yughm4, which last word is also the name of an old
city and territory in Turkistan. |

XXII. Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, son of Hasan-Tigin [Rashid-ud-Din calls him
Husain merely], son of ’Ali, son of ’Abd-ul-Mimin, who bore the title of
KHIZR KHAN—some say Jaghar Khan—with the support of the Giir Khan of
the Kara-Khiti-is, after Sultan Sanjar’s defeat at Katrin, succeeded to the
sovereignty of Mawara-un-Nahr. Khizr Khan, subsequently [in 553 H.]
slew, in Khita it is said, Beghii or Beghtin Khan, the chief of the Karliks or
Karlighs, and otber chiefs of that tribe, then located in Mawara-un-Nahr, such
as La4-chin Beg, and, the sons of the slain Beghii, fled to the Khwarazm
territory, and connecting themselves with Sultan I-yal-Arsalan, Khwarazm
Shah, instigated him to attack Khizr Khan, the Khakan, as he is also styled
—another title by which this dynasty is also called—of Samrkand, that is to
say, Mawara-un-Nahr. This is a sufficient proof that the rulers were not
Karlighs, and that they were I-ghiirs is utterly out of the question.

I-yal-Arsalan, Khwarazm Shah, accordingly, in the same year [553 H.—A.D.
1158], in Jaméadi-ul-Akhir, marched an army into Mawara-un-Nahr, ar-
rived at Bukbara, and, from thence, moved towards Samrkand. On the news
of his movements reaching Khizr Khan, he at once summoned to his standard
all the Tarakamah nomads of those parts, from the Kara Kol or Black Lake,
ps far as Jund, and brought them to Samrkand. He mustered his forces on
the bank of the Bagh-dad river in the Sughd, near the capital, and within
the walls of the city. He likewise sought aid from the Kara-Khita-is, who
despatched to his aid the I-lak of the Turkan, but the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, and
Raugat-ug-Safa, both style him the I-lak of the Tarakamah [plural of Turk-
man, which, since they also consider them Turks, or belonging to the Turk
tribes, is much the same in signification], who, soon after arrived, with a force
of 10,000 gallant men to the aid of Khizr Khan, and, through the I-lak’s
endeavours, an accommodation was entered into, and the Khwarazm Shah re-
tired into his own territory again. These were one portion only of the Karliigh

Turks, for Ibn-Dastah, in his account of the Jihiin, says, several rivers flow into
the Jihiin, among which is the considerable river called the Wakhsh river,
which issues from the tract of country above the land of the Karliigh Turks.

The Beghi are often referred to by our author, after this period, in several

places in this work, as being located in Wakhsh and Badakhshan [see note 5,
page 374, and page 494], and they are the tribe of this same Beghii, the
Karlik or Karliigh. The Ghuzz are also styled Beghi, as previously stated
in the account of the Turks, but these Beghii Karlighs are totally distinct from
the Ghuzz. There are no such people, I beg leave to say, as ^“ Ghozzes,”’ or
^“ Ghoz”” or ** Gusses,” nor do ९८५८ know that the Osmanli claim descent from
the Ghozz,” any more than they do from the ‘‘ Kankulis,” but we know quite
the contrary

Shizr Khan, and his predecessor also, were tributaries of the Gir Khans,

as was likewise "Usman, Khizr’s successor ; but the mention here, by different
historians, of the I-lak of the Tarakamah or Turkan being sent dy the Giir
Khan Aimse/fto the assistance of Khizr Khan is very important, proving, as
it does, what I was quite cognizant of before, how crude and erroneous are

919 a THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.
nation, and they broke out into rebellion. Sultan Sanjar

the theories put forward by a writer—Mr. प्र, प. Howorth—who has been
writing largely of late on ‘*‘ Mongols,” ‘‘ Ghozzes,” ^^ Gusses,” and the like, and
imagines that the ‘‘ € [sic] Turkan,” of D’Ohsson, was one of the sovereigns
of this dynasty I am here giving an account of, and that they were all styled
‘Arslan Khans,” i.e. ‘* Lion Khans,” when, out of the twenty-three sovereigns
here mentioned, but द्य were styled Arsalan, i.e. Lion. The I-lak-i-Turkan,
or I-lak-i-Tarakamah, 25 he is also called, was certainly one of the descendants
of Afrasiyab, and that was why the Gir Khan sent him to the aid of his kinsman,
Khizgr Khan [and he had good cause to hate Karliiks], and there were several
others, too, who claimed similar descent, as well as the dynasty of the Bughra
and I-lak Khins I have here given a brief account of. I-ghiirs they certainly
were not.

The I-lak-i-Turkan above referred to is most likely the very same person
who, in 522 H. [A.D. 1128], gave up his authority to the Giir Khan, or other-
wise his son or successor in that title. The former is the more probable.
The length of his reign, which must have been considerable, is not given,
neither the date of his son’s succession.

XXIII. SULTAN ’UsSMAN, son of Jalal-ud-Din, ’Alf, son of Hasan
[Tigin] of the Bughra Khan family, who, on account of the antiquity of his
race, is styled Sultan-us-Salatin, is the last of this dynasty, but, at what period
he attained the sovereignty, is not stated. As he had solicited a daughter
from the Gir Khan, to whom he was tributary, in marriage, and been refused,
Sultin Muhammad, Khwiarazm 91121, for that very reason, to spite the Gir
Khan, gave him a daughter of his own in marriage in 606 H. Great friendship
and intimacy arose, in consequence, between Sultan ’Ugman and his father-
in-law, but it developed into great resentment. "Usman abandoned the
Sultan’s friendship and was going to ally himself again with the Gir Khan
At last, Sultin Muhammad marched against him, took Samrkand, and secured
the person of Sultan "Usman. Sultan Muhammad was inclined to forgive
him, but his own daughter, "Usmin’s wife, whose name was Khan Malik,
was against it, and, in 609 H., he was put to death, at her instigation, some
say, by her command, and with him that dynasty became extinct. The length
of his reign is not mentioned.

From the account of ’Usmin in the notice of the Kara-Khita-is farther on,
considerable discrepancy will be noticed respecting his again attaching himself
to the Gir Khan after his alliance with the Sultan of Khwarazm, and the
Sultin’s occupying Samrkand, and the absolute contrary would appear to be
the fact; but, that something unpleasant did occur between him and his
father-in-law, ’Usmian’s being removed from Samrkand, and taking up his
quarters at Khwarazm plainly show.

Sultan ’Usman—said to have been a second र पपा in beauty—it was, who,
when along with the Gir Khan’s army, interceded with the Kara-Khita-is
and saved Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, Ghiirf, from captivity,
and enabled him to escape from Andkhiid, after his defeat there in 601 H
See page 480.

Another proof that Turkistin was ruled by many petty princes is, that
among the Maliks of the [पां kingdom in Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-
timish’s reign, one was ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, a Prince of Turkistin—a refugee
apparently—but of what family he came is not mentioned. He subsequently
gave considerable trouble, and was put to death in 634 H. See page 649.

@
IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. gi!

marched to coerce them ; and Baniko of Taraz, from the
side of Khita [the Kara-Khita-i territory—from Taraz]
with a numerous army, advanced to encounter the Sultan,
and a battle took place between that host of infidels and
Sultan Sanjar. The army of Islam was defeated, and
Turkan Khatin, who was the Sultan’s consort, became a
captive [in the hands of the Khita-is].° After the Sultan
retired, they [!] sought for peace, and sent back Turkan
Khatin, and they obtained immunity.

When the insurrection of the Ghuzz [tribe] of Khandan’
broke out and continued, and the dominion of Sanjar
declined, as has been recorded, the Karah Khita-is
acquired vast strength, and the Maliks of Turkistan,
with their assistance, used to subdue each other, and were
wont to send them riches, valuable gifts, and presents, in
hope of their aid and help. Those Maliks continued to
use their utmost endeavours in the subjection and destruc-
tion of each other for so long a time, that the Karah
Khita-is became rulers over the whole of them ; and, for a
period of near eighty years and over, their power con-
tinued.

At first, when they became supreme, the chief men
among them, in succession to each other, were several
persons ; and those who lived near unto my own time, and
of whom I have heard from narrators, were I-ma, Sunkam,
Arbaz, Tiima, and Baniko [of Taraz], and their sovereign
was a woman, and, at last, after that female, there was a man,
and his title was “the Gir Khan,” and they were wont to
style him “the Khan-i-Khanan.”* Some have related that

Another is mentioned as holding Utrar, and another Jund, during Sultan
’Ugmin’s reign over Mawara-un-Nahr.

® See also the account of the rulers of Sijistin and Nimroz, page 188.

7 Some copies of the text, as in the account of Sultan Sanjar’s reign, where
the particulars of these events will be found [page 154], have Khatlan, some
Khandan. Here, the former is correct: there the latter. The Ghuzz or
Ghizz— or jy—[it would require a good deal of ‘‘twisting” to turn their
name into the impossible one of ‘‘ Gusses’”’] came into the Musalman terri-
tories from Khandan, which is on the frontiers of Chin or China, but, when
they revolted against Sultan Sanjar, they were dwelling in Khatlan, whence the
confusion, and only crossed the Jikiin towards the close of Sanjar’s reign, prior
to his defeat by them. See notes ०, page 374, ?, page 424, and ५, page 426.

8 Which is the Persian translation of the title ‘‘Gir Khan.” Mr. H. H.
Howorth in his book on the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” page 719, has the following :—

912 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

this Gir Khan had, secretly, become a Musalman, but
God knows the truth in this matter. It is agreed, however,
that the first among them [the Karah Khita-i rulers] were
just sovereigns, and were adorned with equity, and ability,
and used to treat Muhammadans with great reverence, show
respect unto ecclesiastics, and used not to consider tyranny
and violence allowable towards any created being.°

«६ Colonel Yule adds, ‘the tendency to swelling titles is always to degenerate,
and, when the value of Khan had sunk, a new form, KAdn-Xhdndn, was
devised at the court of Dehli, and applied to one of the high-officers of state.’”
Here we have the ‘‘new devised form” as early as 1259 A.D., nearly thrve
ceuturies before the first Mughal Sultan-of Dihli appeared in India. The title
of Khan-i-Khanan— Khan of Khans—is not at all uncommon, and is frequently
mentioned in histories centuries before any Mughals reigned at Dilht.

Surgeon-Major Bellew, *the Historian of the Kashghar Mission of 1873
hus fallen into error in his account of the ‘‘Gorkhan” from the ^ 7aérats
Nésari,” and other works quoted by him, for he makes out, in the first place .
[page 132], that the ‘‘ Kara Khitay,” who ‘‘came to the cities of Cubaligh
and Balasghun, took the government upon themselves” from ‘the Afrasyab
Princes descended from Iylik Marzi [sic],” and ‘‘kept it for eighty and odd
years,” and then tells us that ‘‘their ruders in succession were Ayma, and
Sangam, and Arbar, and Tana, and Taynko, and then a queen who was suc-
ceeded by Gorkhan.” All this is different from the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, of
which this work is a Translation.

9 It would tend, probably, to elucidate the above statement, and to correct
some of our author’s errors and shortcomings, if I gave, here, a brief account of
the dynasty known as the Gir Khans of Kara-Khitae or Karah-Khita.

The original country of these rulers is Khita or Khitae, which consists of
several vast tracts of territory ; and the designation of Khita differs according
to the different races who speak of it. For example, ‘‘that great and famous
country which has always been the seat of government of powerful sovereigns,
and is so at present [when the Fanakati wrote 578 years ago], is called by the
people themselves—.s5.yle yejy\*—Khan-zji Khan-kiie—and the Mughals
call it ~+ [दत or w3sle—Jah-kiit. The Hindiis call it Chin, while we,
in Mawara-un-Nahr, term it Khita and Khitiae.

‘There is another country of great extent, to the east of Khita inclining
south— S. E.—which the Chinis [Chinese] call by the name of use or igs P]—
but the Mughals style it र ८5-- भात the Hindiis, Maha-Chin [not Ma-Chin],
which is to say Chin-i-Buzurg, or Great China.” [That Khutan was ever
called Chin or Ma-Chin, as Remusat is said to have stated, cannot be shown,
but it formed part of the Chinese empire].

“To the north of Khita there are certain tribes of Sahra-Nighinan [Nomads]
whom they [the Khita-is] call Jidadn or Jaidan, and the Mughals know them by
the name of Kara-Khita-i or Black Khita-i. The great barrier or wall separates
Khitde from the lands of the Turks and Nomads.” It must be borne in mind
that it is a custom among eastern people to distinguish countries, and sometimes
people, by the epithets of white—d@# and chaohan—and black—4ard or sarah,
the former name being given to the most extensive or fertile countries, and most
civilized people, and the latter to the poorest and least fertile countries, and the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 913

Upon several occasions the armies of these rulers had

less civilized people. The same may be remarked with respect to the term,
surkh-rv%—red-faced, that is to say, honourable, of good fame, and siyéh-ru—
black-faced, meaning disgraced or dishonoured.

‘The dwelling-places or lands of the Jidan tribe adjoin the plains, wilds, or
steppes of Mughalistan ; and, on one occasion, a person of the Jidan tribe
rebelled, seized the sovereign of Khita, and became Badshah himself. For
several generations his descendants reigned. They were afterwards ousted by
another person, and the Altan Khins, who were finally overthrown by the
Chingiz Khan, and his son, Uktée Ka’in, were his descendants.”

The family of the person who afterwards rose to sovereignty with the title of
the Gir Khan [‘‘ Gorkhan,” ‘‘ Kawar” and ‘‘Gawer,” and ‘‘ Kur, a form of
Gur Khan,”’ and the like, of European authors, and some European trans-
lators, are entirely wrong] was named 9५५ .,.403—KOMKIN or KOMKIN TAE-
GHU or TAYA-GHU, also written seb 5<+3—Kishtin or Koshtin Tae-ki, or
Taya-kit [the Yeilu Taishi probably of D’Ohsson], which names might vary a
little more according to the vowel points, but sot the consonants, except that
७८ and ¢ in the middle or end of a word are interchangeable, and that Turks,

Tattars, and Mughals, change ॥ and ८ into 4 and क occasionally. I have read
the above words according to the usages of the Persian language. Kiimkin
Tae-ghii’s family was one of distinction in those parts, and, long before the
time of the Chingiz Khan, and antecedent to the rise of the sovereigns of the
Khiirjah or Khorjah—+e,.s—dynasty [Corea of Europeans is here referred to],
forced, through the vicissitudes of destiny, he left his native country along with
80 persons of different tribes or families, and took up his dwelling—pitched his
tents—within the borders of Kirkiz or Kirkiz, respecting which see the account
of the Turks at page 876. This tract is generally mentioned along with Tingkit
by most of the authors I have ‘quoted in my note on the descent of the Turks,

Tattars, and Mughals.

Some again say that these 80 persons were his own family and kin, and that
they were accompanied by their dependents and followers, who made up a

considerable number, and, from their proceedings, this last statement appears
the more correct. of the two.

The Kara-Khita-i fugitives assailed the people of those parts—Kirkiz or
Kirkiz—and were themselves attacked in return, and hard pressed. On this
account the Kara-Khita-is moved away from those tracts, and entered the
territory of I-mil—Je! or I-mil—J.l—or the territory on the river of that
name, and there founded ‘‘a city,’’ in, and about which, the Gir Khan being
an exceedingly just and efficient ruler, some 40,000 families, Turks, and num-
bers of others, soon gathered around him. The remains of that city, the name
of which is not given, were still to be traced at the time the Histories I take
this account from were written, but, in the time of Mirza Muhammad Haidar,
the author of the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, who wrote subsequently—whose work I
have partly translated, and of which more hereafter—neither traces of this place
nor of the city of Bilasé-ghiin were known. त

Subsequently, the Kara-Khita-is moved from the territory of I-mil, be-
cause it could not contain them, they had multiplied so greatly, and
advanced towards the boundary of the Bilasaé-ghiin territory. This city—
Bilisa-ghiin—the Mughals, subsequently, but long previous to the days of
Amir Timi, styled Ki or Ghai and Aki or Aghii—Baligh, that is to say,
according to the Habib-us-Siyar, and some other works, the pleasant, good, or

914 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
crossed the river Jihiin, and had made raids upon the fron-

beautiful city. The ruler of that tract of country was a person who claimed
descent from Afrasiyab, but whose name is ever once mentioned, and he pos-
sessed neither power nor grandeur; and the Turk tribes of Karliik or Kar-
ligh—whose immigration thither has been recorded in the account of Arsalin
Khan—and Kankuli, who were dwelling in those parts [and also the Khifchak
tribes, according to another writer, only Khifchak or Kibchak is not the actual
name of any tribe, but a tract of country], having withdrawn their allegiance
from him, used to resist his officers, harry his people and followers, carry off
their flocks and herds, ‘‘and were wont to act as wolf and fox.”

This Amir of Bilasa-ghiin, as previously shown, was a totally different
person from either of the rulers mentioned in the account of the Afrasiyabi
dynasty of kings just recorded, for all the accounts given by different wmiters,
and what has been stated respecting the IXth and Xth sovereign of that
dynasty, tend to show that, besides that dynasty, there were several other
Khans, who appear to have been, in some way, subject to them; and our
author, in several places, as well as other writers, confirms this, as in the
following examples.

At page 51, our author mentions ‘the rulers of the Afrasiyabi dynasty of
kings,” and one as ‘‘the Great Khan,” thus showing that there were lesser
Khans. At page 84 he mentions, ^^ Kadr Khan,” and ‘‘the Khans of the
Turks,” and “the Khakans of Turkistan.” Saljiik also is said [see note >,
page 117] to have descended from Afrasiyab. Again, at page 118, our author
says ‘‘all the Maliks of Turkistan and the Afrisiyabi rulers” were afraid of
the son of Saljiik ; and, at page 121, ‘‘’Ali Tigin, the late ruler of Bukhari,
who was one of the Afrasiyabi Khans,” is referred to. At page 133, he
informs us that Sultan Alb-Arsalan ‘‘led an army into Turkistan and Tiran,
and the Maliks of Turkistaén, and the Afrasiyabi Amirs, submitted to his
authority,” and, on the next page, that he had reached the frontiers of Kash-
ghar and Bilasa-ghiin, in 453 or 454 H., when he had to hasten to the
Khalifah’s succour. At page 137 he says Malik Shah brought under his sway
‘*the whole of the countries of Turkistan.” At page 260 also, our author
states that ‘“‘the Sultan [Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah] set out towards
Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan; and the whole of the Maliks and Sultans of
the Afrasiyabi dynasty, who held territory in the countries of Mawara-un-Nabr
and Farghanah, presented themselves before him,” and this was immediately
before the total downfall of the Giir Khan and his dynasty. All this, and
what has been already related, certainly does not show that ‘‘the Afrasiab
dynasty is a mistake,” as a recent writer, merely because he has not found any-
thing about them in the foreign translations to which he alone has access,
supposes.

The Amir of Btlasd-ghiin, unable to coerce these Turks—the Karlighs and
Kankulis— hearing of the arrival in his vicinity of the Gir Khan, the plenitude of
his power, and the number of his dependents and followers, despatched envoys
to him to state his own weakness, and inability to keep the Karlighs and
Kankulis in subjection, and to invite him to move towards his capital, that he
might cede unto him his territories, and release himself from the troubles and
sorrows of his present state, and his people be protected.

Before I proceed farther it may be well to say something on the geography
of these parts, as described by Oriental authors, and also to refer to some

+
IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 914

tiers of Khurasan, and had ravaged Upper Khurasan lying

statements on the subject which have recently appeared in the Geographical
Magazine, and in the YFournal of the Royal Asiatu Society, and more par-
ticularly because the geography of these parts refers as much tv the notice of
the Afrasiyabf Maliks, of whom I have just given an account, as to the Kara-
Ehita-is, and will tend to elucidate the history of both dynasties.

In the Geographical Magazine for Decemberys 1874, page 389, is an article or
letter on ‘‘ Bala Sagun and Karakorum,” referring to a ‘‘ brochure of Professor
V. Grigoreif, on the Khans of Turkistin, who quotes the Chronicle of ‘‘ Der-
wish Akhmed Effendi” [probably meant for Darwegh Ahmad A fandi,—there is
no sucha name as Akhmed] from a Turkish translation, in which it is said that
«८ The capital of their dominions was at first the city of Balasagun, but after-
wards Bukhara and Samarkand. They began to rule over Mavrennahr in the
year 383 (993 A.D.), and their dynasty came to an end in 609 (1212 A.D.).
Their main possessions were: 1. Bala Sagun, which was their capital, situated
at the beginning of the 7th climate in 102° of Long. and 48° of Lat., not far
from Kashghar, and considered from of old the old boundary city of Turkis-
tan; 2. Kashghar, the capital of Turan, in the 6th climate in 120° of Long. and
45° of Lat.; itis also called Avdukend, &c.; 3. Khotan, in the most distant
part of Turkistan, Long. 1 70°, and Lat. 42°; 4. Karakorum; 5. Taras;
6. Faraé: all three important cities.”

This statement is tolerably correct, according to the Oriental geographers,
with a few exceptions. They could not possibly have begun to reign over
Mawara-un-Nahr in 383 H., because ‘‘the Great Khan” did not take pos-
session permanently of Bukhara until the 11th month of 389 H., up to which
time, the Sam4dnis ruled over Maward-un-Nahr [See page 52 of this trans-
lation].

In no histories, however, that I have met with, and they are not a few, is
such a statement made as that, ‘‘at first, the city of Bala Sagun [What has the
‘* Effendi Akhmed” done with the g4 in the name Bilasa-ghiin? He is not
likely to have written it with simple g any more than he would write Ahmad
-with £4,] was the capital,” and afterwards Bukhara and Samrkand. 2811258
ghiin continued to be the capital of a branch of the family up to 522 H., when it
was given up to the Kara-Khita-is. The Afrasiyabi began, to reign centuries
before 383 H. Without referring at all to pre-Muhammadan times, we find a
Turk dynasty, the ruler of which is styled Khakan, as the Afrasiyabi kings are
also sometimes called, ८ Samrkand and Bukhara when the ’Arabs first crossed
the Jibiin, and they are, doubtless, one and the same. The first we hear of
them in Muhbammadan times is during the period of the early ’Arab governors
of Mawara-un-Nahr, previous to the time of the Tahiris and Saminis, but the
earliest date mentioned is about the year 53 or 54 H., when Muhallab made a
raid on Bukhara. In 77 H., the people of the Sughd of Samrkand are men-
tioned, and their Malik, Tarkhiin by name. Inroads were made into Far-
ghanah by the ’Arabs in 87 H., and a treaty was entered into with the Turks.
In 111 H., the Turks issued from the tracts north of Bukhara and Samrkand,
and invaded Khurasan, but the Khakan of the Turks was routed by Junaid.
Soon after, the Khakan again returned with a great army, and the Arab Amir
of Samrkand had to render aid to Junaid, but nothing decisive was effected.
Then followed the rise of Abii-Muslim, when the tracts east of the Jibiin were
little thought of, the rise of the Tahiris and Samanfs followed, who forced the
Turks back from Mawara-un-Nahr, but, in 367 H., Shams-ud-Daulah, the

916 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

on the bank of the Jihiin, and the confines of Balkh,

I-lak Khan of the Turks, entered Maward-un-Nahr, as already stated in the
account of them. In no history is Bilasé-ghiin mentioned as their capital, bat
Kashghar is constantly referred to as such. Ahmad, the first of the Samanis
[See page 28], who died in 261 H., held Farghanah, Shagh, and Isfanjab—
most of the people of which were Ghuzz, and Khalj Turks, who had embraced
the Musalman faith—together with Kashghar and Turkistan to the frontier of
Chin, and this shows where some of the Turk tribes were located at that
period. In 280 H., Isma’il, Sdmani, made a raid upon the country of the
Turks, took their chief town, the name of which, unfortunately, is not men-
tioned, and carried off great booty and a vast number of captives ; but it
appears that, the more the Samanis turned their attention to Khurasan, the
stronger grew the Turks beyond the Sihiin. On disturbances arising in the
Samani empire, from the time of Amir Nib, the IXth of that dynasty, the
Afraisiyabi Maliks began to meditate conquests in Mawara-un-Nahr, and,
in 383 H., the son and successor of the I-lak Khan—Abi-Misa-i-Harin, the
Bughra Khan— determined to attack Bukhara, but he did not retain possession
of it. Three sovereigns of the Samani dynasty reigned after 387 H. The
former date was about seven years after the widow, Aldn-Kuwa, gave birth to
the ‘‘ sons of light.”

It is amusing to read the various theories put forth with regard to the site
of Bilasi-ghiin, and the derivation of its name.

‘In the Geographical Magazine for June, 1874, we are told, in a paper by
Mr. Robert Michell, who quotes M. Paderin, that ‘‘ Bela-sagun,”’ as he styles
it, is indifferently called Kara-Korum, Kara-Kherem, Kara-Koram, and Kara-
Khelin, and that, ‘‘by Muhammadan writers, it is called Urdu Balik (D’Ohs-
son, Hist. des Mongols, ६. 1, p. 76) or Belasagun, now written [by whom ?]
Balgasun, which M. Seménof explains is only a title.”

This may be dismissed as simple nonsense. Bilasdé-ghiin and Kara-Kuram
are totally distinct places.

In the same Magasine for July, 1874, p. 167, Colonel Yule, C.B., referring
to the above, says ‘‘ That Belasaghun was a corruption of the Mongol Bal-
ghassun, or ‘city or royal residence,’ as is intimated in the same passage,
seems highly probable,” but he thinks that it is ‘‘ greatly to be questioned *
whether ‘‘ Belasaghun was the same as Karakoram. . . . . By the story Bela-
saghun should lie somewhere between these (the Caspian, Aral, and Jaxartes)
and Imil,” &c.:

Who is the authority that ‘‘ Belasaghun was a corruption of the Mongol
Balghassun ” is not mentioned, nor do I think any Eastern guthor will be found
to contain such a statement for reasons I shall mention farther on.

In the next month’s Geographical Magazine Mr. Michell again informs us
that the correct version of the previous quotation is taken from M. Seménof’s
Russian edition of part of Ritter’s Asta as follows :—‘*‘ Muhammadan writers
call this ancient capital of the Turks [Korin, or Kholin, or Kara-Koram]
Ordu-Balig [D’Ohsson, Hist. des Mongols] or Belasagun [Balgassun], which,
however, is only its title.”

I certainly should like to know the name of any Muhammadan author who
has made such an astounding assertion.

Farther on Mr. Michell says: ‘‘In conclusion, I would suggest that Pinjan,
near Turfan, which is, too, situated near a lake [But who says the capital of
the I-lak Khan, the Afrasiyabi Malik, was near a lake?) may be the ancient

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 917
Tirmid, Amid,’ Tal-kan, Guzarwan [also Juzarwan] and

1 Probably Amii, or Amiiah, a town on the banks of the Jibiin, a place
frequently mentioned. in history, and which gives the name of Ami, Amin, or
Amiuiah to the nver Jihiin, which separates Khurasan and I-ran from Tiran
and Turkistan, the signification of which words are, full, replete, running over,
full to the brim.

The inroads of Kara-Khita-is into Khurasan refer to the time of the
Khwarazmi rulers, particularly Sultin Shah. See note 7, page 245

Balga-sun (alga meaning ‘‘ guarded refuge,” and Sw being, perhaps, an
ˆ objective case, and derived from Sx, water,” &c.

Such a situation for Bilasa-ghiin is scarcely possible.

In the next number of the Geographical Magazine, for September, 1874,
Colonel Yule again writes, referring to the above, ‘‘ Balghasun is a Mongol
word apparently meaning city” (perhaps “walled city,” but I have no access
to a dictionary), and, in a foot-note, adds: ‘‘It is, I presume, a derivative
from Saligh. ` 457 one sees ina common Mongol .termination, but I do not
know its force

We are not informed who says “ Balghasun” is a Mongol word, but con-
sidering that we only hear of it through the Musalman writers, who give us
the account of the Gir Khan, and the battle between the Sultan of Khwarazm `
and the Kara-Khita-is, and before the irruption of the Mughals, is it likely
to be ‘‘a Mongol word”? It appears also to have been entirely overlooked
with regard.to these theories, that the Mughals did not dwell in cities, towns,
or houses, but in felt tents

Asiin is certainly a Mughal, or Turkish name, as in Ta-ir Astin who was
chief of the Urhar Markit tribes, and some others,

I shall have something more to say respecting Kara-Kuram under Uktie
Ka’an’s reign.

Surgeon-Major Bellew, of the late Kashghar Mission, informs us that
‘* BalasAghun,” is ‘‘the Kubaligh of the Moghol” !

Mr. Eugene Schuyler, in the Geographical Magazine, for December, 1874,
p- 389, is quite correct in supposing that 2811252 - द्य is not a Mughal name,
but it certainly does not come from Persian ‘‘éa/a,” upper, as he supposes,
because the second letter in that Persian word is a/#z/—\|—94—whilst the second
letter in» .X,—also written with G—4&—for s—gh—which is pronounced,
according to the vowel points mentioned in explanation of it—BILAsA-GHON—
is /@m—J—and, without doubt, this place was a long way west of Kara-
Kuram, and mare to the south.

Colonel Yule, in ‘‘a note” to Mr. E. Schuyler’s ‘‘ letter,” says, Juwaine’s
expression as given by D’Ohsson conveys the impression that the name
^“ Gubalik” was given to the city by the ‘‘ Mongols” of the ^ Chinghiz age,”
and that ‘‘ Balghasun” alone could not have been the earlier name of the
city, meaning as it does merely ‘‘city,” and that ‘‘Gubalik ” may be a clerical
error for Armalik, and may indicate Cobalek (or Gubalik) was the same as
Almalig,” &c.

It is very certain that the Mughals called Bilisa-ghin Ghi-Balik or Baligh
with the guttural g4, and ७ and € being interchangeable —GJl + or (4५ y¢—
and the Juwaini says so as well 25 many others, but neither ‘‘Gubalik,”
“*Armalik,” ‘‘Cobalik,” nor ‘‘Balghasun.” Bilasd-ghiin was certainly its
Previous name, and by no other was it known, according to the histories avail-

918 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRi.

Gharjistan, as far as the frontier of Ghir. All Mawara-un-

<

able, until the Mughals gave it a name among themselves, but I look upon the
Mughal name as merely a by-name. The city did not lose its previous name
in consequence of this by-name, but it is scarcely mentioned after its sack by the
army of the last Gtir Khan, and it was subsequently destroyed by the Mughals
at the time of the Chingiz Khan’s irruption into Islim. The meaning
assigned to Ghii by Oriental writers is ‘‘ good,”’ ‘‘ fine,” ‘‘ pleasant,” &c., and
Baligh signifies ‘‘city”—as Bigh-Baligh, Khan-Baligh, Mau-Baligh, and the
like, but Ghii alone does not mean ‘‘ good city,” ‘‘ fine city,” nor ^^ beautifal
city.”

Mr. H. H. Howorth has been writing voluminous articles lately on ‘‘ Aviie
Ata,” the ‘‘ Khara Khitais,” ‘‘ Balasagun,’”’ and other kindred subjects, but,
to judge from them, he appears to change his opinions, as well as his proper
names, with each fresh one.

In the Geographical Magasine, for July, 1875, p. 217, he writes with reference
to ‘‘Balasagun” that ‘‘Gu-Balik” is probably ¢he /steral translation of “‘ city
on the Chu,” and he follows one of the writers just referred to, and says that
‘* Balasagun”’ [all three writers mentioned spell the word differently, it will
be observed] ‘‘ merely means city,’’ and that ‘‘ Balasagun is a wholly indefinite
term.” In this last opinion I do not by any means agree with him. What
more definite name is required I cannot conceive : it is as definite as Samrkand
or Bukhara. But in what tongue does *‘ Gu-Balik” mean only ‘‘city”?
This is diametrically opposed to Colonel Yule’s theory.

In the Geographical Magazine, for December, 1875, p. 378, Mr. Howorth
makes a very ‘‘bold guess’’ indeed ‘‘that Kayalik is no other than Go-dalig
[sic]i.e. Beautiful City,” and so—as he states above that “ Balasagun,”’ which
is ‘‘a wholly indefinite name,” and “ only means city,” is ‘* Gu-Balik ”—Bilas3-
ghiin and Kayalik must, consequently, be one and the same place, while, on
the very same page, Kayalik, the existence of which is undoubted, long before
the Kara-Khita-is were heard of in that part, is supposed to be “a city or
town of their foundation.”” In the map to his book, ‘‘ 7८ Mongols Proper,”
however, ‘‘ Bilasaghun” and ‘‘ Kabalik (Kayalik)” are some 500 miles apart !

On that same page it is also said that Kayalik is no doubt compounded of
the well known Turkish particle baligh or town, but in the 7: ९. As. Soc,

yol. viii., part ii., p. 275, he writes: ‘‘The site of Balasaghun has been much
debated. It was the capital of the ancient Turkish Khans of Turkistan.....
It merely means city.”

Again, in the ‰ ९. As. Soc., p. 277, we have: “Another important town
of the Kara Khitaes was Kayalik or Kabalik. . . . which name is not impro-
bably a corruption of Kobalik or Kabalik,’’ and, “the present Russian station
of Kopal”’ is supposed to be its site.

In the same paper, page 267, ‘‘ Bish-balig” is said to mean “six courts,”
which consisted of ‘‘ six towns,’’ but what authority exists for this last state-
ment is not said. At pages 6 and 21 of his ‘‘ Mongols Proper” we are
informed that ‘‘ Urumtsi” is ^" Bishbalig,” and in the map prefixed to it we
have ‘‘ Bishbalig (Urumchi) ;” but at page 737 it is stated that ^ Piechipali is
no doubt Bishbalig,” and at page 165 1८15 ^" Bish Balig, the capital of Uiguria.”

Another writer says the word signifies ‘‘ five sowns,” which is correct, for dish,
in Turki, means ve.

The ‘‘Afrasiab dynasty” is also believed, by Mr. Howorth, ‘‘to be a
mistake,” in reference to the Khans of Turkistin [whom I have, I think,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 919

Nahr, Farghanah, and Khwiarazm, and some parts of

shown to be substantially pa/pad/e sovereigns], contrary to every Mukammadan
writer, who has written on the subject, without exception, although, in another
place [Geog. Mag. for July, 1875, p. 217], we have ‘‘the descendant of
Afrasiab, who was deprived of his title of Khan, leaving him only that of ‘ /&
Turkan !’”

In another place this very ‘‘Ilk” Khan, or ^ Turkan,” is said to be
“Sone of the Lion Khans—Lion Hoei or Lion Uighurs of Visdelu, whose
northern capital was Almaligh, a well known city in the middle age history of
Central Asia, which is said to mean City of Apples” [there is no baligh, how-
ever, in the word], but in what tongue is not said. ... ‘* It is fixed on the
site of the modern [!] city of Old Kuldja, on the river Ili,” but who fixed it is
not said. In Col. Walker’s last Map (1875) Kuldja figures as //: /

A line or two after we have, ‘‘I have no doubt, therefore, that it was its
chief [the chief of Almaligh], the Lion Khan of the Uighurs,” &c., . . . the
metropolitan city of the Lion Khans,” &c., &c. See Nos. IX. and X. of that
dynasty, note to page 905.

Page 277, of the same paper, the writer says :—‘‘ The deposed Khan of Turkis-
tan had his seat of empire at Samarkand,” it was at ‘‘ Bilasagun ' before, and,
just above, p. 269, ‘‘Almaligh” was ‘‘the metropolitan city” ; and, by way
of improving this, at page 272, I find that ९८.4६ Khan” [At Khan—the
Kara-Khita-i, who, with Baniko of Taraz, fought the battle with Sultan
Sanjar) ‘‘is probably the dispossessed Khan of Turkistan,” his ‘‘Ilk Khan,”
and, at p. 282, that ‘‘the old royal race of the Turkish Suétans of Turkistan
still held subordinate authority at Samrkand”’!! In no History is the chief of
Bilasa-ghiin ever styled Sultan, which was the title of the head of the
Afrasiyabi dynasty.

So the upshot of all this is that the Afrasiyabf dynasty is ‘‘a mistake,” and
yet they are said to have reigned at three different capitals—Bilasa-ghiin,
Almaligh, and Samrkand, and also to have ‘‘held sway at Kashgar,” to be
‘‘descendants of Afrasiab,” also ‘‘Lion Uighurs” [I-ghirs], and of ‘the
old royal race of Turkish Sultans,” and yet also ‘‘Karluks.” What a
tissue of mistakes and inconsistencies have we here! See also the note on
Koshluk farther on.

I have already alluded to some of these statements in my account of the
Afrasiyabt dynasty.

Mr. Howorth’s latest theory [Geog. Mag. July, 1878] is that ‘ Kenchak,”
which Mr. Schuyler has “ identified” with Merke, “seems to mark the site of
the famous capital of the Kara Khitai, Balasaghun, which has been the
subject of much controversy !”

With respect to the situation of Almaligh, I have found some scanty
particulars, which fix its position tolerably clearly. On the occasion of
Timir’s moving into Mughalistin from Samrkand, in 791 H., he crossed the
Sibiin at Tash-kand, and reached the Issi-Kol IF ii. e. Issigh-Kol—
US deol—where he was joined by the troops which had moved from Andigan
thither. Having remained there for a time to perfect his arrangements, the
force set out by the ’Ugsak or Pass of Arjatii or Irjatii, plundering and

slaughtering the enemy on both sides of its route, until, Aaving passed
Almaligh, it crossed the river Ilih—aJli—by swimming its horses, and
reached the Kara-tal, &c., and no river Chii is at all referred to. The Kara-
tal river rises about twenty or twenty-five miles west of Alten-imel [the Altan

920 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Khurasan also, used to send them tribute; and, upon

I-mil ?] of Col. Walker’s map, in Lat. 44° 10’, Long. 78° 10’, and falls into the
Tin-ghiz, or Din-ghiz, or Lake Balkash. So Almialigh is to be looked for, or
rather its site, to the west of the river Ilih, and nearer Almati than ‘‘New
Khulja.”

In looking for sites of such places, it appears to me that sufficient allowance
is not made for the physical changes which may have taken place during six
centuries. In one great tract of country, in particular, as I shall presently
show, a vast desert has existed for some centuries, where, previously, many
flourishing cities stood; but the sites even of the cities of Bilasd-ghiin, Kayalik,
Bish-baligh, and Almaligh, were entirely unknown upwards of three centuries
since. Landmarks have disappeared, and hence people look elsewhere than in
this desert for lost cities, in many instances. I may also again mention here
that our author’s Kabalik— !\y—at page 154 is incorrect. The copyists of
the different A7SS. wrote ल= for .s—and such an error has occurred in other
Histories than his carelessly copied. The city’s name is properly ७ accord-
ing to other authorities, and the place certainly lay south of the Ulugh Tagh,
or Thianshan mountains, but near them.

I will now give a few particulars as to what the. Muhammadan authors,
and some old travellers say, respecting the geography of the parts herein
referred to.

In Astley’s Collection Bish-Baligh— @l+e)—is said to be 26° W. of Pekin,
and rather more than 44° N. of the equator, and about a degree N. of Turfan
—y%b—while Kara-Kuram is said to be 10° W. from Pekin, and about the
same distance as Bish-Baligh N. of the line. The I-ghir country formerly
seems to have included the provinces of Turfin and Khamil, or at least the
middle portion near Turfan, within eight or nine leagues of which was their
capital called Elo-chew by the Chinese, but, as previously mentioned, the moun-
tain [range] of Kara-Kuram was about the centre of it. Whether Ho-chew is
Bish-Baligh—which was a well known place long after the Mughal invasion—
or whether the last was another capital to the N. of Turfan, as Gaubi] men-
tions, is difficult to say. The I-ghiirs were masters of a portion of the
adjacent parts of Tattary to the sources of the Irtish and Mount Altai [Altan
mountains], as were the Kargbiz.

Abii-l-Fida says Bilasé-ghiin is near Farab or Utrar—a totally different
place from Far-yab in the territory of Balkh, but Abi-l-Fida blunders often.
The authors quoted in Astley say the correct name is Yalasa-ghiin, or ‘‘ Good
Town,” not Bilaisé-ghiin, and that B and Y in the Arabic are easy to mistake.
This is true, but the mistake here is their own. Bilasd-ghiin is also said to be
‘¢ still in existence [its ruins ?] in Little Bukharia—Kichik Bukhara, or the western
part of the Kashghar territory, as at present constituted—near the borders of
the Greater Bukharia and the country of the Kalimaks, and one of the principal
entrances on that side into Great Bukharia.” Others again say that it was
near Kashghar, as Darwesh Ahmad, quoted by Prof. Grigoreif, also says, and
some, more to the N., near Utrar or Farab, in Turkistan.

Others again seem to consider that the town which appears in some maps as
‘*¢ Turkistan ”-—a very unusual, and I think impossible name for either a town
or city, but not for a country—is no other than Bilasd-ghiin, but this cannot be
right. I shall have something to say about this town of ९ Turkistan” farther
on. Some call the former place ‘‘ Turan which gives name to the country.”

That portion of the Great Desert of Kob, or Shamo, W. of the Kara Muran

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 921

several occasions, they had made captive and carried off
Musalmans from those tracts.

or Hohang-Ho, is said to be called Kara-Khitae—because the Khiti-is
dwelt so long in that part, and herein the empire of the Kin, or
Western Lyau of the Chinese writers, appears to have been founded. It is
farther east and farther south than what appears in some recent maps as
‘“* Karakhitai.”

Another writer plainly states that ‘‘Farab is a city of Turkistan detween
Chach, i. €. Chaj or Tash-kand and Bilaisa-ghiin, both of which are cities of
Turkistaén, and that it is the name of the territory likewise in which it is
situated,’’ and, farther, that the word signifies “lands cultivated by artificial
irrigation by means of rivers or sdrizes—subterranean canals—in distinction to
lands irrigated naturally by rain.” According to this, Bilaséa-ghiin must be
looked for to the northward of Tash-kand.

It may also be well to mention what the Oriental geographers mean by
the term MAWARA-UN-NAHR, the Great Bukharia of old European writers
and travellers. The term is neither ‘‘equivalent to Doub,” nor to ^" Mesopo-
tamia,”’ but simply ‘‘that which is beyond ¢He river,” i.e. the Jihtn, Amiiah,
or Oxus—7Zyans-Oxus. It has the territory of Tash-kand on the N., Balkh
on the S., Khwarazm on the W., Farghanah on the E., and Samrkand is its
capital.

‘* FARGHANAH, which is the name of a country [not of the city of Khokand
as it is made to appear in Col. Walker’s map], is bounded on the W. by
Samrkand and its district, E. by Kashghar, S. by the Kohistin of Badakh-
shan, and, although the parts bounding it to the N., previous to the ninth
century of the H., were in a flourishing condition, and contained places such
as Almaligh— adlsi—Alamati or Almatti—yi\Jl—and Banki—, {6—other-
wise Taraz—,|,b [no Bilasi-ghiin is referred to], yet now, through the passage
of the Uzbaks, it has become desolated. The river Sihiin, also called the
Ab-i-Khujand, flows through it, enters Turkistdn, and becomes lost in the
sands,” There is no mention whatever made of the ’Aral Lake or Sea in the
works I am quoting.

“‘In the territory of. Farghanah there are seven large and small cities, five
tothe S., and two to the N. of the Sihiin:—1. Andigan [Andijaa of the
’Arabs], a very strongly fortified place; 2. Ush ; 3. Marghanian [sic yt~»—
Marghilan of the maps], seven farsakhs W. of Andigin; 4. Khujand, N. of
which is a mountain called Mughal-Tagh in which much /irésa4 and other
valuable things are found; 5. Akhshi, on the N. side of the Sihiin [the 4ésé
of maps], which, with the exception of Andigan, is the largest place in
Farghanah; 6. Shash, a very old place, now [old] Tash-kand. It is also
called Chach and Chaj [incorrectly Jaj]; 7. Uz-gand.”” Khokand is not
mentioned, it being a comparatively modern place.

Farghanah, Mawara-un-Nahr, and Turkistan, are all separate territories.

‘‘TURKISTAN is mostly in the sixth climate, including Farab, a small
territory, the chief town of which is called Guzar—,JS ; but some say it is the
hame of a city above Shash or Chaj, and near unto Biladsa- ghun—yy Flood
This other form of writing the name of this famous place—Biladsa-ghiin—
might plausibly be supposed to be from J4ildd, only it is the plsval form of
balad, which means city, town, country.

JUND, or, correctly, JAND, was once a. great city, but it has been in ruins
for over 300 years.

3 N

922 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
With the exception of the Sultans of Ghir and Bamian,

The territoryof KAsHGHAR is bounded N. by the mountains of Mughalhstan
[the Ulugh-Tagh of the Turks—See note on the Turks, p. 875, and Thianshan
of the maps], out of which several rivers flow. Its W. boundary is alsoa
range of mountains which shoot out from the mountains of Mughalistin
towards the S.—Bilaur [also written Billaur] Tagh—the name of which range
does not require ‘to be abolished,” since it has been known from the time of
? A bd-ullah-i-Khurdadbih down to Khusbhal, Khatak, Afghan, and to modern
times—and from these also issue rivers which flow from W. to E.; and the
whole of the country of Kishghar and Khutan lies at the skirts of these two
ranges of mountains. The E. and S. boundary is a great १2९१2 or steppe—e
plain, not naturally a desert—which is wholly jungle and wilderness, and
hillocks of moving sand. In ancient times there were several cities in this
tract, the names of three of which are Katak or Katuk—e&S—Tir—,);—and
Lob-Kagal—J5 s}—probably Lob-Katal, between Turfan and Khutan ; but
they have been all buried in thesands. There was another called Fulad-Sum—

2Ms—but its fate is not recorded. It was a well-known place in the Chingiz
Chan's time.

YARKAND, in former times, was a great city, but it had greatly decayed,
and was becoming desolate, when Mirza Abu-Bikr made it his capital. It
soon after had 12,000 gardens in and around the city, which was surrounded
by a wall thirty cubits high. The people of this part of the territory are
[when the author wrote] divided into four classes, the Tuman, cultivators or
peasantry, the Kichin, or soldiery, the I-miaks, or nomads, and the officials.

KHUTAN was one of the most celebrated of cities and territories, ‘* but of
that rose, naught but the thorn remains at present.” "Abii-l-Fida says it was
a city of the I-ghiirs. In former times, before the desert just mentioned
approached so near it, Chin could be reached in fourteen days, the whole way
was inhabited and cultivated, and one or two persons could pass to and fro
with safety, without being obliged to join Kafilahs, but now [when the author
wrote], on account of the Kalimaks—Europeanized ‘‘ Kalmuks”—the route is
closed, and that which is now followed is 100 stages. Vast quantities of
yashab or yashm, also called 4adah—jade or jasper—is found in the rivers of
Kashghar and Khutan, and in those territories also the camel of the desert,
which may be tamed, and the 44/ash, galas, or ~ ++ [the Bos Grunniens.
See page 68, and note 4].

The territory of Kashghar [Little Bukharia] appears the same precisely as
that called MANGALI-SUYAH—4ay9~ _X.—which signifies ‘‘towards or facing
the sun—sunny-side -- ++ wls|—the boundaries of which are thus given.
० 07 the N. Isstgh-Kol, S. Jirjan—yle~-—and Sarfgh-i-I-ghiir—, yx! aye
E. Kosin — ls s—and Tarbokor or Tarbogor—,5y,, and W. Sim-ghar—
ye pl.—and Jakashman or Jakshman—y\e+sle. This tract contains several
cities, the greatest of which are Kash ghar and Khutan, Uz-gand, Akhsfkat or
Akhsisak, Andigan, At-pashi, Ak-si, and Kosan.” This may be considered
the territory peculiar to the Afrasiyabl Maliks before they again obtained
possession of Samrkand and Bukhara on the downfall of the Samianis.

An account of Kashghar and other places on the Sibiin, written by me some
twenty years since, will be found in the Yournal of the Bengal Asiatic Society
for 1857. At that period a Chinese Jan-Jang or Governor General resided at
Kourah near Ith.

I now return to the history of the Gir Khans.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 923

who used not to submit to them, all the rest of the Maliks

Some say the first of this dynasty assumed the title of Gir Khan before
Bilasa-ghiin was given up to him by the Afrasiyabi Khan, but,certainly, it was
not conferred upon him by Musalmans. Its assumption is said to have taken
place in 522 प्र. [A.D. 1128], at which time Muhammad Khan [Ahmad of
some writers], who bore the title of Arsalan Khan, ruled over Mawara-un-
Nahr. See No. XVII. of the Afrasiyabi dynasty, who, certainly, is of the
person referred to as surrendering his sovereignty and capital to the Gir Khan;
and, from what follows, and what I have already stated, it is proved beyond a
doubt, that there were several petty dynasties of Afrasiyabi Khans in Turkistan,
besides the rulers of Mawara-un-Nahr.

Alfi says that, at the period when the Kara-Khita-is fought with Sultan
Sanjar, the territories of Turkistan, namely, Kashghar, Bilad-saghiin, Taraz,
Khutan, and other parts besides, were in the possession of great Khans, who
were Turks, who accounted themselves of the lineage of Afrasiyab, and
descendants of Satuk Karaghar, and that, at that time, all had become
converts to Islam.

The Gir Khan, having assumed the sovereignty over the Afrasiyabi Amir of
Bilasa4-ghiin and his territory, now despatched Shabnahs [Intendants] into
different provinces and districts, and, after a time, his dependants and followers
increasing, and growing still more flourishing, and their cattle fat [ssc in MSS. ],
reduced the Kankulis to subjection, despatched an army towards “ Kaghghar
and Khutan of Turkistan, and subjected those territories.’”” The Karlighs are
also mentioned, but another division of that great tribe, not included in the
one mentioned as being located on the eastern frontier of Arsalan Khan’s
dominions, appears to have moved, or to have been forced, farther south-west ;
for, about this period, or perhaps a short time previously, this portion of them
had worsted the Ghuzz, and expelled them from their former pasture-lands, and
compelled them to enter Chaghnanian and Khatl, the plural form of which
word, Khatlan, is also applied to that district or tract of country [but Khutlan
is incorrect : the first vowel is fa¢h, not gammahl], and it is also called Kol-i-Ab,
which is a dependency of Badakhshan, and famous for its beautiful damsels
and fine horses. See note 5, page 374, and note 8, page 423.

Subse juently the Gir Khan despatched a great army towards the territory
of the Kirkiz to take vengeance for the treatment he had suffered there, and
Bish-Bali gh was taken possession of. From thence the Gir Khan’s forces were
despatched towards the territory of Farghanah or Andigan and Mawara-un-Nahr.

The situation of the land or territory of Khirkhiz, or Kirkiz, or Kirakiz,
as it is also written, has been a puzzling subject hitherto, but its situation is
apparent here, more particularly if we take the description along with what is
Stated in the MASALIK WA MAMALIK, and in IBN-HAUKAL. Speaking of
China, the former work says:—‘‘ If one desires to proceed from the east [Chin]
towards the west, by the country of the Naemians, the territory of Khirkhiz,
the Taghar-i-Ghuzz [see note on this subject farther on], and Kimak
towards the sea, it is a journey of nearly four months. . . . The country of
Tibbat lies between the land of Khirkhiz and the kingdom of Chin. Chin
lies between the sea, the land of the Ghuzz and Tibbat,” &c., &c.

The Sultins of Mawara-un-Nahr, ‘‘who were the father and grandfather
of Sultan Usman of the Afrasiyabf dynasty, also laid their heads upon the
line of the Gir Khin’s commands, and became his tributaries.” See the
dynasty of the Afrasiyabi Maliks, Nos. XIX. and XXIII.

3N 2

924 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
of the confines had become subject to that race. On two

In 534 H. [A.D. 1137, but the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, contrary to several
others, says in 536 11.], his troops defeated Sultan Sanjar on the frontiers of
Samrkand, as already recorded at page 154; but, since that was written by
me, I have elsewhere found some further particulars respecting that defeat
which clear up so completely a most obscure passage in our author’s account
there given, that I must relate them here. The identical passage in our auther
referred to is as follows. ‘‘ After a great part of his [Sanjar’s] reign had elapsed,
a body of people from Kara-Khitae, from Tam ghij [see Afrasiyabi Malik, Na.
XXI.], and the dependencies of Chin, entered the confines of Kara-Kuram of
Turkistan, and solicited Sultan Sanjar to assign them grazing lands ; and,
with the Sultan’s permission, they took up their quarters on those confines,
in Bilasd-ghiin, Kabalik [Kaialik— |J\s is the correct name], and Almalik,
and made those parts their grazing grounds.”

In an article by Mr. H. प्र. Howorth, entitled “The Northern Frontagers
of China: The Kara Khitai,” in the Yournal Ro. As. Soc. for April, 1876,
p- 271, the above passage from this Translation is quoted, and its writer adds,
referring to our author, “ The latter author is mistaken in supposing that
Turkistan was then subject to Sanjar,” &c. Now, considering that Mr.
Howorth is wholly dependent on foreign translations for his information on
these matters, such a statement on his part, to say the least of it, is pre-
sumptuous. I need scarcely mention to those who can read the eastern His-
torians for themselves, that every author who has written.on the subject im the
Persian language agrees with our author, even the ^^ great Raschid”’ himself,
respecting Sultan Sanjar’s suzerainty over the parts in question, as well as to
his father’s and grandfather’s suzerainty likewise.

‘* When their progeny became very numerous, during the Sultan's reign,
they rebelled against his authority, and fought a battle against him. Taniko
of Taraz, at the nomination of Sunkam and I-ma, was at the head of the
Khiti-is. The Sultin’s forces, from a long period of inaction, and enervated
by protracted ease and luxury, were unable to cope with or stand before the
enemy, and were overthrown; . = . he [the Sultan] concluded a peace with
them, and the pasture-lands of Turkistan and Biladsa-ghiin, along with the
cities and towns included in those frontier tracts, were left in the hands of the
Khita-i invaders.”

The particulars I refer to, tending to throw light on the above, are, that,
when Sultan Sanjar proceeded to Samrkand and dethroned Muhammad [No
XVIII. of the Afrisiyabis], a part of the Kara-Khita-is had a ypsrat or
camping ground in that part—on the frontier—the tracts assigned them by the
Sultan in former years, for our author is, by no means, mistaken, as the author
of ^" Mongols Preper” imagines, in stating that Sanjar’s authority extended as
far as the confines of Turkistan, for his being at Samrkand, on this occasion,
proves it, and, moreover, as mentioned at page 133, the Maliks of Turkistan,
and the Afrisiyabi Amirs submitted to the authority of Alb-Arsalan,
Sanjar’s grandfather. Some of the Sultan’s Amirs persuaded him that
this was a good opportunity for seizing their flocks and herds, and driving
out altogether these Kara-Khita-is, whom they accused of contumacy. They
implored the Sultin’s mercy, and offered, through those Amirs, to present
5000 horses, 5000 camels, and 50,000 sheep, as a propitiatory offering to him
to allow them to remain where they were. This was approved of by the

Sultan, but, in the meantime, the chiefs of the tribes of those Kara-Khita-is

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 925
or three occasions, the forces of the sovereigns of Ghiir, the

{Sunkam and I-mi apparently] fled to the क of the Gir Khan, whose power
was a drag upon the Sultans of Turkistin [the Afrasiyabi Maliks], and
represented to him that the Sultan of Khurasin had become enfeebled by the
infirmities of age, and that the affairs of that country had fallen into the hands
of slaves and boys, and urged the Gir Khan to wrest Mawara-un-Nahr and
E&hurasan out of their hands. He accordingly put his forces in motion, and
Sultan Sanjar and his troops, despising them, moved to encounter them
without concert or precaution, or caring for immensely superior numbers,
thinking to overthrow them easily. Sanjar’s troops however, who were but
few in comparison with the enemy, were soon completely surrounded by the
Kara-Khita-is, and Sultan Sanjar had to attempt to cut his way out with a
body of 300 men. He succeeded, but he came out with only ten or fifteen
remaining. In this affair 30,000 Musalmans were slain, and Taj-ud-Din
Abi-l-Fath, Malik of Sijistin and Nimroz, who, with the centre, maintained
his ground to the last [see page 188] was taken prisoner. The rest agrees
with what our author has already stated under Sanjar’s reign.

The Tarikh-i-Alfi gives another account of the origin of the war between
the Sultan and the Gir Khan.

The Karlighiah families stationed on the frontier of Arsalan Khan’s
dominions had been harshly treated by him. He considered they multiplied
too fast, and set overseers of his own over them to prevent them having inter
course with their wives. They endured this tyranny for a considerable time,
not knowing whither to fly. At last, grown desperate, on the arrival on the
frontier, which it was their duty to guard, of an immense 4df/ah of traders
and merchants, consisting of Turks, Khita-is, and people from all parts to the
eastward, they attacked the ६८24, and seized all the property and effects of
the merchants composing it. They then made known to them that, if they
desired to get their property restored to them, they must put them in the way
of finding a place beyond Arsalan Khan’s dominions, provided with water and
forage sufficient to enable them to subsist, as they were resolved to stay no
longer under his rule. The merchants told them they knew of a tract of
country well provided with what they required, sufficient for the subsistence of
ten times their number, and that it lay in the terntory of Bilad-saghiin in
Turkistin. The Karliighiah Turks, on this, restored the property of the
merchants, seized their overseers, and, taking them along with them, made for
the territory of Bilad-sagbin, and there took up their quarters.

They were, however, in constant dread of Arsalan Khan, until the Gir
Khan, who had, by this time, arrived in that part, entered into hostilities with
the ruler of Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan, and the Karlighiah entered into
combination with him. At this juncture, Arsalan Khin, as previously men-
tioned, diéd, and Hasan-Tigin, who had been installed in his place by Sultan
Sanjar, soon followed him. The sovereignty then devolved upon the Khakan,
Mahmiid, son of Arsalan. Shortly after, the Gir Khan, with a vast army of
Khiti-is and Turks, numbering, it is said, 300,000 men, advanced into
Mabmiid’s territory, and began to annex it. The Gir Khan imposed one dinar
as a tax upon each house in every city he reached, but neither allowed his troops
to enter the people’s dwelJings, nor their cultivated lands, and did not farther
molest them. To such of the Maliks of Mawara-un-Nahr as submitted, the
Gir Khan assigned a tablet of silver to be hung up at the entrance of their
palaces. See Fournal Ko. As. Soc., vol. v., for 1870, p. 29.

926 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.
champions of which army were the Sipah-salar, Khar-jam

As previously mentioned, the Khakan, Mabmiid, was defeated, and, at his
urgent prayer, Sultan Sanjar prepared to succour him. Sanjar is said to have
taken six months to complete his arrangements, and, in the month of Zi-Hijjah,
534 H., to have crossed the Jihiin with an army of 100,000 cavalry—an exag-
gerated number—and moved towards Samrkand. Serving in his army were
the Maliks of Sistin, Ghaznin, and Ghiir, and the Hakims of Mazandaran.

When Sanjar reached Samrkand Mabmiid complained bitterly of the con-
duct of the Karliighiah, and the Sultan resolved to chastize them first. On
becoming aware of his intention, they sought the protection of the Gir Khan,
who sent a letter to the Sultan demanding what crime was laid to the charge
of the Karliightah. The Sultan’s reply, as may be imagined, was sufficiently
haughty. The hostile forces moved to encounter each other, and, after an
obstinate battle, the details of which have been already given, victory declared
in favour of the Khita-is, who were immensely superior in point of numbers ;
and the Sultan, having cut his way out with a few followers, fled to Tinmiz.
The Walf of Sistan was taken prisoner [see page 188], and Amir Kimaj, who
had charge of the Sultan’s Aaram, and the whole of that establishment, were
also made captive.

It is stated in the Tarikh-i-Yafa’l, that nearly 30,000 Musalmans fell in this
battle, and that among the slain were 4000 women. ‘‘In some other His-
tories it is also stated that, after the flight of the Sultan, the Turks and
Khita-is poured into the camp and began to plunder. On their approaching
the part where the Aaram was, Turkian Khatiin, the Sultan’s chief consort,
and most of the wives of the Amirs, and the soldiery who acted as their guard,
defended it against the infidels, and slew a vast number of them; and it was
only after 4000 women had fallen that the rest of the Aaram was captured,
including Turkan Khitiin. The Giir Khan left the females in charge of those
of their own people who remained, and would not allow them to be interfered
with. They were treated with honour and reverence, and, soon after, were
sent back to the Sultan in Khurasin.”

Mr. H. H. Howorth has not quoted my translation quite correctly [Jornal
R. As. Soc, Vol. viii. p. 272]. Nowhere have I said that ‘‘At Khan was
in alliance with the chief of Kara Khitai.” In my note *, to page 154, I say
< Sanjar fought a battle with At Khan,” which, as my authority related it,
refers to one of the leaders of the Gir Khin’s forces. Most certainly At Khan
was not “‘the dispossessed Khan” of Turkistan, nor was he the dispossessed
chief of Bilasi-ghiin, nor does Raghid-ud-Din, in his Jami’-ut-Tawarikh,
anywhere state that the ruler of Kara Khitae adopted the title of Gir Khan—
not ^“ Ghur” Khan—‘‘after ८47 great battle in 525 H.” because he says, [in
the AZSS. before me] that this battle took place in 536 प्र. [which began 5th
August, A.D. 1141], while others make it one year, and some, two years
earlier—534 H., A.D. 1139-40, and 535, A.D. 1140-41.

Amir Timi, I also beg leave to say, never adopted the title of ‘‘ Emir
Timur Gur Khan,” for the very significant reason that the title of the Kara-
Khita-i chief consists of ८८८ words ७५. , > while the word applied to Amir
Timir, which appears to have misled Mr. Howorth, is one and is written ts”
——Giirgan, and in signification there is no connexion between them whatever.

To return to my story. After having gained this great success, the Gir
Khan overran great part of Turkistin and Mawara-un-Nahr, acquired pre-
dominance over those countries, and made their rulers tributaries. He in-

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 927
[cham], and Muhammad-i-Khar-nak—on whom be peace!

creased his forces, and his war materials accumulated ; and, shortly after, he
despatched an army under the command of his general, Arbaz—»,|—[{this
mame is also mentioned by our author: ‘‘Irmuz” is not correct] towards the
Kbwirazm territory, in order to sack and devastate the rus‘dés [a word par-
ticularly applied in Khwarazm to villages or collections of huts or felt tents,
in distinction from the words ah and garyah used in 'Irak and Khurasan).
His troops created great havoc, and Itsiz, Sultan of Khwarazm, despatched
an envoy to the Giir Khin to sue for peace, and agreed to pay allegiance to
him for the future, and a yearly tribute of 30,000 dindrs, besides cattle, flocks,
and other things. On this accommodation having been entered into, Arbaz
retired ; and soon after, in 537 H.[A.D. 1142-3], the Gir Khan died. He
was of the Mani [Manichean] religion himself, but his wife was a Christian.

It is stated in Alfi that he died in the month of Rajab of the following year.

He was succeeded by his wife, as no son remained to him, but some authors
distinctly state that his daughter succeeded. To judge, however, from the
events which followed, it is very improbable that the daughter then succeeded
her father, because the name of the husband of the female sovereign who ruled
so long is given, and it is scarcely probable that the Gir Khin’s wife married
again, without some mention of it being recorded, nor was it the custom, I
believe, for widows to re-marry.

The wife, whose name is not given, dying some time after her succession,
but without any date being mentioned, was succeeded by the Gir Khian’s
daughter, Konik or KONAYIK KHATON, but whether the late sovereign was
her mother has not transpired. The word is somewhat uncertain in some
works, but I put the most trustworthy reading first upon all occasions, and
that used by the majority of writers. It is written Uj which, according to
whether g or € be used, may be spelt in various ways, and ebyS which may
be Koyiinik, and ys) S—Koliin—but another author, in two copies of his work,
has Komanik or Gomanik or Komanig or Gomanig—vsl.,S—according as to
whether the Tazt or ’Ajami ७ be meant.

In the seventh year of I-yal-Arsalan, Khwarazm 8021158 reign [557 or
558 H.], because he was not punctual in the payment of his tribute, as
stipulated by his father, his dominions were assailed by the Giir Khan’s forces.
The Sultan sent forward, in advance, Gha-ir Beg, the Karligh, a native of
Mawara-un-Nahr, with an advance force, towards the Amiifah, but he was
defeated and taken captive before I-yal-Arsalin could come to his support,
and the latter fell sick and returned to Khwarazm where he died in the month
of Rajab of the same year.

On the death of I-yal-Arsalan, there were two claimants to the throne-—his
two sons, Jalal-ud-Dfn, Sultan Shah, and 'Imad-ud-Din, Takigh Khan, who
was the eldest son ; but he, not being sufficiently powerful to oust the former,
who, with his mother—a strong-minded woman—was in possession of the
capital, and being at that time absent in charge of the territory of Jand, which
his father had taken from Kamal-ud-Din, Arsalin Khan, son of Mabmid, and
annexed, entered the territory of the third Gir Khan, and sought her help
to recover his patrimony. She agreed to aid him, on the stipulation that, on
his being put in possession of Khw4razm, he should pay over a certain amount
of treasure, and a yearly tribute afterwards.

A large army was accordingly despatched to support Sultan Takish, and
put him in possession, under the command of her husband, Farma or Farmie,

928 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

—had caused the overthrow of the forces of Khiti, and, in

by name,—4 or (८, who conducted the affairs of her empire. In the
Jami’-ut-Tawarikh he is styled Farmae Aka. Sultan Sbah and his mother
fied, and Takish was put in possession of the capital, in Rabi’-ul-Akhir,
568 प्त, [the end of December A.D. 1172].

It is evident, from this, that this female Gir Khan must have reigned a
considerable time, since she was, at this period, living, and lived for a coa-
siderable time subsequently, for, not long after, the Kara-Khita-i ruler sent to
demand more tribute from Sultan Takish than had been previously stipulated,
and, her envoy having behaved in a manner it was impossible to overlook,
Takish put him to death, notwithstanding he was one of the most distinguished
of the Khita-is.

On this, hostilities broke out between Takish and the Gir Khan, which the
former’s brother, Sultin Shah, taking advantage of, left Ghiir, where he thes
was, and hastened to the presence of the Gir Khan, and sought assistance
from her. This was in 569 H. Our author distinctly states that the Ghirian
Sultans treated Sultan Shah with honour, but plainly refused to aid him
against Takish with whom they were in alliance [see page 245, and also
note 3, page 239, para. 2], and our author was certainly well acquainted with
Ghirian affairs generally. Mr. Howorth [Yournal Ro. As. Soc }, in the article
before referred to, quotes Visdelu, but, if Visdelu ever styled Mu’ayyID-UD-
Din—which title signifies ‘‘ The Aider of the Faith ”—the A’INAH-DAR, or
Mirror-Bearer, by the impossible and meaningless names of ‘‘ Umayyzd é
Aimakdur,” the value of his authority is clearly indicated.

The assistance sought by Sultan Shah was granted by her [the Gir Khan] in
574-5 H. [A.p. 1178-9], and again Farmie was sent with an army, but the success
was only partial. The particulars will be found in note +, page 239, and note §,
page 246. According to the authorities from which I take this account, the
female Gir Khan now began to violate the laws and ordinances of the state,
and to abandon herself to sensual desires, until matters went so far that the
late Giir Khan’s brother, and the chief men in the empire resolved to rid
themselves of her, and they put her to death along with her paramour.

It is very evident, from this, that she must have reigned many years, for,
from the date of the first Gir Khan’s death, viz. 537 H., to the year in which
she rendered aid to Sultan Shah, 574-5 H., is no less than thirty-eight years
nearly, and therefore, had this been his wife, she must have been a very old
woman, and her desires must have cooled. It appears to me, therefore—
although all the Musalman writers, without exception, mention ds thre
persons, two males and a female, as composing this dynasty, which lasted
altogether ninety-five years, and has greater credit for its mighty power than
it is entitled to—that the first Gir Khan must have been succeeded first, by his
wife, and then by his daughter, Konik or Konayik. The date of her being
put to death is not given, and, I fear, not to be discovered. Having put
Konik or Konayik Khiatiin to death, they [the chief personages in the empire]
chose one of the two brothers of the first Gir Khan, who were then alive, to
succeed her, and the other, who was wont to embarrass and obstruct the affairs
of the empire, was passed over

Some authors state that it was the brother of the late Gir Khan—named
Komian or Kimin—who accused her of living a dissolute life and thus brought
about her destruction, and that he became the Giir Khan himself.

On his—-KoMAN, or KOMAN—ybks3—becoming established in the sove-

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 929

[one of] those battles, the Sipah-salar, Khar-jam, had

reignty, he sent out Shabnahs [Intendants] into different parts, and appointed
persons, with due discrimination, according to their different capacities, to
various offices.

Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, had, on his deathbed, enjoined his son
and successor, on no account to embroil himself with the Gir Khan if he
desired to preserve the integrity and safety of his dominions, because, he said,
he was a strong barrier between very powerful enemies, which should by no
means be broken down. This refers to the Chingiz Khan, who, at this
period, was becoming very powerful. When Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm
Shah, came to the throne, he continued for some time to transmit the tribute
regularly as before, and friendship continued to subsist between him and the
Gir Khan ; and, when Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Saim, Sultan of
Ghiir, became hostile to Sultan Muhammad, and invaded his dominions in
601 H., the Gir Khan despatched 10,000 men to the Sultian’s assistance under
Baniko of Taraz [see pages 474 to 481 for our author’s account of it]; and
before the gate of Andkhid [Indikhid] the Khita-is fought an engagement
with the Ghiiris, and overthrew them. On this occasion, Sultan ’Usmian of
Samrkand, the last of the Afrasiyabis, was present, as a vassal, with the Khita-t
army : he had not, at that time, withdrawn his allegiance from the Gir Khan.

Now it was that Sultan Mubammad, Khwarazm Shih, being successful in
all his affairs, considered it time to throw off the yoke of the Gir Khan, to
pay tribute to whom, as an infidel, he considered a blot upon his sovereignty,
more especially since the insolence of the Kara-Khita-is had reached such a
pitch, that their envoy, who is styled Tonshi or Tinshi— ७9 -- 8110, by some,
व प्शाा-=9-एष्णाव] Taighi, was his title [See also page 732, and note at
page 866], presumed to seat himself upon the throne along with the Sultin. He
accordingly withheld the tribute for two or three years, and manifested great
tardiness in paying it. At length, the Gir Khan despatched, as his envoy,
his Wazir, Mubammad-i-Tae [5—in some places written Nae— ४५], and
others, to demand payment, including all arrears.

When the Kara-Khita-1 envoy reached Khwirazm [the site of this famous
capital has for centuries been known as Urganj-i Kubri—u ह) —at which
place the Russians have erected a fortress to protect their ~‘‘trade routes.”
Khiwak, anglicized ल्व, as it appears in Col. Walker’s last map is not
Khwarazm. What appears there as ‘* Kunia Urganj,” correctly, Kuhnah—
old, ancient—UOrganj, is the place], the Sultan had made his preparations
for an expedition into Khifchak [our author, at page 254, says the Sultan’s
mother was the daughter of Kadr Khan of Khifchak—other authors style her
tribe Uraniin—but he does not refer, in the least, to this expedition ; and,
at page 260, calls the Gir Khan, by mistake evidently, हणा) Khan—unless
Kulij was another of his titles, or an error for Komin—of Khitae, whose
general was Baniko of Taraz], and was unwilling, at the same time, to disobey
his late father’s last request, and, moreover, did not wish to give the Kara-
Khita-is a pretext or an opportunity for molesting his dominions during his
absence in Khifchak, while he felt it a disgrace even to acknowledge his liability
to pay this tribute. On this account he did not open his lips on the subject,
but left the affair in the hands of his mother—the celebrated Turkan Khatiin,
whose subsequent misfortunes are so pitiable—and set out on his expedition
into Khifchak, the particulars respecting which expedition are not related by
any author with whom I am acquainted

930 ‘THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

attained martyrdom.’ The last of their armies which

® Our author has not given any details respecting these events in his account
of the Ghiiris, nor has he referred to any but the last person here mentioned.

Turkan Khatiin directed that the envoys should be received with befitting
honour ; and the annual tribute due was made overto them. A number of
distinguished persons of the capital were likewise despatched, along with
Mahmid-i-Tae, to the presence of the Gir Khan, to apologize for the delay
which had occurred, and they were charged with expressions of homage and
fealty as heretofore. Mahmiid-i-Tae, however, ‘‘ had witnessed the lofty bearing
and stubbornness of Sultan Muhammad, knew his humour, and fathomed his
thoughts, that he considered himself, in power and magnificence—he was
master of some of the richest parts of Western Asia, west of the Amiiiah—the
superior of the Gir Khan, and that he considered it beneath him to show
humility or flattery to any human being, being satisfied, in his own mind, that
the Maliks of the world were his vassals, and that, in fact, fortune itself was
his servant.” Mahmiid-i-Tae represented these circumstances to the Gir
Khan, and assured him that, after this time, the Sultan would certainly never
pay him tribute again, and, consequently, the Sultan’s emissaries were not
treated with the usual respect or consideration.

Sultan Muhammad, having returned to the capital of his dominions, success-
ful from his Khifchak expedition, began to make preparations for his cam-
paign for liberating Méawara-un-Nahr from the yoke of the Kara-Khita-is
He had been constantly receiving communications in secret, with promises of
support, from Bukhara particularly, as far back as 600 H., and from Sultan
’Usman of Samrkand, and other rulers of Maward-un-Nahr to whom the एण
tracted yoke of the Giir Khans was affliction, and who groaned under the
exactions, the rapacity, and the injustice, of the Giir Khan’s representatives,
who had begun to act contrary to previous usages. The Sultan, accordingly,
marched an army to Bukhara then held by an upstart, named Sanjar Malik,
and sent messages inviting the rulers above referred to to join him in his
proposed enterprise. They were well satisfied to accept the Sultan’s offers ;
and, under the determination of commencing hostilities against the Gir Khan,
in the following year, he returned from Bukhara. This was in 606 H.

Kojlak-also called Koghlak by some writers, and ‘‘Kasghli, otherwise
Koshluk ” by Yafa’i, and Kashlii Khan-i-Sunkar, the Tatar, by our author—
son of the sovereign of the Naemans, after the death of his father, and
dispersion of his tribes, had, some time before, sought shelter with the Gir
Khan from the power of the Chingiz Khan. He had entertained rebellious
ideas towards his protector, previous to Sultan ’Ugman’s becoming a partizan
of Sultan Muhammad, and now that some of the Giir Khian’s own nobles
likewise, in the eastern parts of his territory, had rebelled against his authority
{occasioned, no doubt, by the Chingiz Khan’s proceedings], and, on the
Chingiz Khan’s [first] expedition against Khita [sof against the dominions
of the Kara-Kbita-is], Kojlak pretended to the Gir Khan that, if permitted
to do so, he would go and collect his wandering Naemans, from whom he had
been so long separated, and who had been too long dispersed like sheep
without a shepherd, and would bring them to his assistance, that he had many
of his tribes at and around I-mil, at Bish-Baligh, and in the limits of Kaialik
or Kaiiligh who wanted a leader, and that, since the Chingiz Khan was then
occupied in the country of Khita, he could carry out his plans with facility.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 931

crossed the Jihiin and passed over towards Khurasan was

The Gir Khan took the bait, conferred great honours upon him, and gave
him the title of Khan—Kojlak Khan.

Kojlak having departed, the Gir Khan, when too late, repented of having
let him go, and sent out commands to have him recalled, but without effect.
Kojlak assembled around him all the scattered Naeman tne, and his fame
became noised abroad : all, who were in any way connected with him in the
Gir Khin’s forces, also joined him, and he found himself at the head of a
large army. On reaching I-mil, and Kaialik, he was joined by Tuik-Tughin,
more respecting whom will be found farther on, the Amir or Chief of the
Makrit Mughals of the Kaiat division [see note ५, page 268], who had fled on
“hearing of the power of the Chingiz Khan ; and, in concert, they began to
plunder and devastate the country ; and the Tiimats, another Mughal tribe,
dwelling near the frontier of Khita [on the S.E.], also joined in the outbreak.
The Chingiz Khan had to despatch troops against them, the details respecting
which, not being connected with the fate of the Gir Khan, I reserve for
their proper place farther on.

Kojlak, having now become sufficiently powerful, showed open hostility to
his benefactor, the Gir Khan, having previously instigated Sultin Muhammad
to attack his dominions on the side of the Sibiin or river of Fanakat. Among
others, to whom the Gir Khan had despatched messengers with instructions
for Kojlak’s arrest, was Sultan ’Usman of Samrkand. He had asked the
Gir Khan to bestow upon him a daughter in marriage, and had been refused ;
and this had completely alienated Usman from his cause. He took no notice
of the message, and forthwith entered into communication with Sultan Mu-
hammad, acknowledged his suzerainty, read the Kbutbah for him, and began
to coin the money in his name.

The Gir Khan, on becoming aware of this state of affairs, despatched a
force of 30,000 men against "Usman, and again reduced Samrkand, but did
not deem it advisable to injure Usman further, as he looked upon Samrkand
as the treasury of his empire, and, as Kojlak was acquiring great power, and
making head in the other direction [i.e. in the E.and S.E.], and molesting
his territories, the army was withdrawn from Samrkand, and sent against
Kojlak, who made an attempt to capture Bilasa-ghiin ; but he did not succeed,
and, subsequently, was overthrown, details respecting which will be found
farther on.

There is considerable discrepancy with regard to these last events in con-
nexion with the Kara-Khita-is and the Khwarazmi Sultan, since it is stated
by several authors, as already given in the notes on that dynasty, that the
Gir Khan’s troops appeared before Samrkand, and assaulted it several times
without success, and were finally recalled to operate against Kojlak. This,
however, seems to refer to the defeat of the force sent by the Gir Khan
against Samrkand a second time, after the victory over Banko, narrated
farther on, while the former happened before the (पा Khan’s defeat by the
Khwiarazmis, as soon as he heard of ’Usm§in’s disaffection, as the Tarikb-i-
Jahin-gir confirms.

Immediately on the withdrawal of the Gir Khan’s army to attack Kojlak,
Sultin Muhammad, who had been waiting his opportunity, now marched to
Samrkand with an army. ’Usman came forth to meet him, ceded his
territory to him, and Turtfah, a relative of the Sultin’s mother, was located
there, as the Sultan’s lieutenant. The Sultan and his troops, accompanied by

932 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

that which fought an engagement with the Sultan-i-Gh4zi,

Sultan "इता, and his available forces, probably, commenced his march to
invade the Gir Khan’s dominions. Having crossed the Sihiin at Fanakat,
which is also called the Jihiin—i. €. great river—of Fanakat, by a bridge of
boats, the Khwarazmi army advanced until it reached the Sahra—plain or
steppe—of I-lash, in the territory of Taraz, which is also called Talis and
Talaish, situated beyond the frontier of Shash [now Tashkand], on the side
nearest to Turkistan.

In Col. Walker’s map this place is called ‘‘ TURKISTAN (HAZRET),” and
this gives me a clue to the probable reason how it obtained this name. Near
it is the tomb of the Khwajah, Ahmad, a Musalman saint of Turkistan, and,
as the word Hazrat is applied to saints as well as to capitals, such as ‘‘Hagrat-
i-Dihli,” or ‘‘Hagrat Husain ’—this place which sprung up near it, as Taraz
declined, became known as the Mazar-i-Hagrat-i-Turkistan—the Tomb of the
Saint of Turkistan, but Mazar, having been, by some means, dropped, Hazgat-i-
Turkistén, Europeanized into ‘‘ Turkistan (Hazret),” has been the resalt.
Taraz, in its day, was a large place, but was ruined, like many others, by the
Uzbak inroads centuries since, as already stated.

Having reached the plain of I-lash—also written I-ldmish—Baniko, who
held that territory as his appanage, and was the leader of the Gir Khan's
troops, and who was then at Taraz awaiting them, issued forth to encounter
the Khwirazmis ; and, on the 22nd—some say the 7th—of Rabi’-ul-Awwal,
607 H. [12th of Sept. A.D. 1210], a battle was fought in which the Kara-
Khitd-is were completely overthrown, and Baniko wounded and taken prisoner.

For the remainder of the events which followed see my notes to the
Khwirazmi dynasty, page 262, note ', note ५, page goo, on the Afrasiyabi
Maliks, and other details farther on.

Surgeon-Major Bellew, who turns the Gir Khan into ‘‘Gorkhan,” after
previously stating that ‘‘a Khan or Ruler of Afrasiyab descent ” applied to
“‘Gorkhan of the Kara Khitay,” immediately after turns ‘‘ Gorkhan ” into an
** Uighir,” and his army into "^ Uighurs” as well; and makes Khwdhrizm
{where does the ¢ come from in Khwarazm ?] Shah “defeat the Uighur
army,” and capture ‘‘ Atrar,” in 620 H., four years after the Chingiz Khan
captured Bukhara, and more than ¢hirtcen years after the defeat of Baniko of
Taraz and the army of Kara Khita-1s, which took place in the third month of
607 H.

** Gorkhan” is then ‘‘ deposed by the SAdncdr Tartar [I wonder what sort
of animal a ‘‘Shuncar Tartér is] Koshluk,” who ‘‘destroys the Uighur
empire.” AA little further on [p. 133] we have the same ‘‘Koshluk ”—thongh
probably unknown to the Doctor—made ‘‘ chief of the Ndyman tribe of Chris-
tians” who ‘‘ was a Budhist” ! Then we are tcld that ‘‘ Gorkhan, now ninety-
two years of age, at once took the field, recovered Atrar,’’ &c., and then that
** Koshluk ”—the ^" Budhist Christian Nayman,” and ‘‘Shuncar Tartar ”—
‘* captured Gorkhan, whom he consigned to an honourable captivity, in which
he died two years later aged ninety-five ” !

For an account of these events see page 260.

The Doctor, besides making ‘‘ Uighurs ” of them, has skilfully turned न
the Gir Khans into ove ‘‘Gorkhan,” and the period, during which the Kara
Khita-i dynasty continued, into the years of the life of his one ‘venerable
Gorkhan, 95 years old” !

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 933
Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam; and, when the

A few lines further on the real I-ghiir sovereign, and successor of a long
line of rulers, is turned into ‘‘ another Budhist chief, Aydy Cut, Tartar,” who
५० had risen to power at Balasaghin” !

To the ^“ History of Kashghar ” above referred to, is appended a note, signed
by Sir T. D. Forsyth, K.C.S.1., C.B., which states that ‘‘no one has gone
into the History of Eastern Turkistan from the earliest times with such deep
and careful research as Dr. Bellew. He has spent many months in reading
voluminous Persian and Turki manuscripts, &c., &c.”

The History in question only came under my notice since this account was
written, or I should have referred to many other errors. I merely do so now
to correct a few of them, for history unless correct is worse than useless—
nothing can be more pernicious, because it misleads.

I may also add that the Raugat-us-$afa, which the writer refers to in his
list of authorities, is quite correct in its statements, and agrees with other
writers.

Before closing these remarks, I must say a few words on ‘‘the powerful
dynasty of Kara Khitae,” which is said to have ‘‘ revtued on a small scale
when destroyed by Gingis Khan [I always imagined that Kojlak and Sultan
Muhammad destroyed it before the Chingiz Khian’s advance westward, at
least the Oriental writers say so, the «^ great Raschid ” included],” and which
Visdelu is said to have made such an incredibly ridiculous statement about
[See Mr. H. H. Howorth’s article in the 7. R. As. Soc., before referred to],
that the «^ Kara Khitae should have traversed Khurasan and the wastes of Cen-
tral Persia, and found their way into Kerman without a hint from the Persian
historians. Nor can we conjecture a reason for such a march, nor why he [the
Gir Khan is referred to] should have returned again into Turkistan if it had
been made”! Here again is confusion worse confounded.

One of the Persian authors whose work, from a foreign translation, Mr.
Howorth so often quotes, but whose name I will not at present mention, at the
close of his account of this dynasty, adds: ‘‘The Gur Khan, having been
seized by Kojlak, in one or two years died ; and, since the period of decay in the
affairs, and the regression of the fortunes of that dynasty came about, that person,
who was the captive of a prison [evidently referring to the brother of the third
Gir Khin], became the Amir and Khan of that tribe or people, and the Gir
Eyhan of the grave of the house, home, and possessions of that race [a play
upon the words gir, also written gor, a grave, and 4han wa man, house,
home, &c.], and his tribe became scattered and dispersed.”

About the time in question, and subsequently, several persons of the race
found their way into India, and some of the great nobles, mentioned in the
preceding Section of this translation, were Kara-Khita-is. In the reign of
01126 also, Jai-Timir of the Kara-Khita-i tribe or people held the govern-
ment of Khwarazm, and, subsequently, Mazandaran was added to his
government.

The Kara-Khita-is therefore were not so utterly destroyed, but ‘‘ the older
and younger dynasty,” as they are fancifully styled by Mr. Howorth, had no
connexion whatever. Burak the Hajib, a native of the Kara-Khitiae territory,
and a relative of the leader of the Gir Khan’s troops, taken prisoner in the
great battle in which they were overthrown by the Khwirazmi Sultan, had
became a convert to the Musalmin faith, entered the service of the Sultin,
and rose to the rank and office of a chamberlain.

934 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

period of the sovereignty of that Sultan-i-Ghazi elapsed,
and Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, acquired sway
over the territories of Turkistan, Baniko of Taraz fought a
battle with him, was defeated, and taken prisoner, and, at
the hand of Sultan Muhammad, embraced the Muham-
madan faith."

Trustworthy persons have related in this manner, that
Baniko of Taraz came out victorious in forty-five battles
over sovereigns of his own time, and no one [ever] defeated
him [before]. On the third occasion,*? Sultan Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shah, made a dash upon the equipage of the
Khitd-is, and captured the whole of it ; and 2511 Khan-

Fanakatf and Alff say that Burak and his brother, Husiam-ud-Dfn, Hamid-
i-Biir, came into Khwarazm, with others, on the part of the Gir Khan, in the
reign of Sultin (भप, to collect the tribute, and were treated so well,
and liked their reception so much, that they remained there, and became
Musalmans, and rose in the Sultan’s service.

Some ten years afterwards, when the Khwarazmf empire had been over-
turned by the irruption of the Mughals, and Sultan Jalal-ud-Din was fighting
against them, his brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Ak Sultan, was in Kirmin, the
subordinate sovereignty of which his father had conferred upon him, Burak,
the chamberlain, joined him with some Kara-Khita-is, his own private fol-
lowers, and some of the late Sultan’s dispersed soldiery. After Ghiyds-ud-Din,
Ak Sultan, had been defeated in an attempt upon Fars in 620-621 H., Burak,
aggrieved on some account, lelt him, and set out for Hindiistin, accompanied
by some other Khwarazmi leaders, to seek service with Sultin I-yal-timish,
by way of Kich and Mukran. On the way he was attacked near Jiraft by the
governor of Gawashir, on the part of Ghiyads-ud-Din, Ak Sultan, near the
eastern frontier of Kirman, but chanced to defeat his assailant, through a party
of Turks having deserted the latter during the fight. Burak now resolved to
take advantage of the distracted state of the empire, and set up for himself;
and succeeded, by treachery and fraud, in gaining possession of Kirmain. At
length, in order to secure his own safety from the Mughals, he sent the head
of his master and benefactor’s son to Uktie, son of the Chingiz Khan, who coa-
firmed him in the government of Kirman, subject, of course, to the Mughals.
Burak held it eleven years, and it passed to his descendants. Farther details
will be found at page 283, and note 9, and page 295.

Burak was in no way related to the Gir Khins, and was a mere successful
adventurer. How therefore can his rule over Kirman be possibly construed into
a ‘‘ revival of the Kara Khitae dynasty on a small scale,” without noticing the
rest of the above grotesque statement as to the Giir Khian’s travels ?

It may just as well be asserted that the dynasty of the Kara-Khita-i “ revived
on a small scale” in Khwarazm, at Dihli, or at Mausil, for the Ata-Bak of
Mausil was a Turk of Kara-Khitae, as well as Jai-Timiir, and Sultan I-yal-
timigh.

1 See note 8, page 261.

2 See note " to page 262, para. 8, page 264.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 935

i-Sankur, the Tattar, fought a battle with the Gir Khan, took
him prisoner, and the dominion of the Khita-is came to a
termination, and passed away.

ACCOUNT OF THE OUTBREAK OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN
THE MUGHAL—ON WHOM BE GOD’S CURSE!

[The author begins here by mentioning the sayings of
the Prophet, Muhammad, with respect to the portents
betokening the end of the world, that they would be
observed about the year 610 H. ; but, as the world has not
yet terminated, I need merely refer to them with respect to
the Ghiri Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Baha-
ud-Din, Sim, whose assassination is considered by the
author to be the first of those signs.]

The martyrdom of the Sultan-i-Ghazti, Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Muhammad-i-SA4m—may he rest in peace !—happened in
the year 602 H.; and he was the monarch who became the
last of the just Sultans, and the last of the conquering
Badshahs. His sovereignty was a barrier against the
troubles of the end of the world, and the appearance of the
portents of the judgment-day. According to the indica-
tion of these sayings [of the Prophet, Muhammad], in the
same year in which that victorious Badshah was martyred,
the gates of sedition, war, and tumult, were opened, and, in
this same year, the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, rose up in
the kingdoms of Chin and Tamghaj,? and commenced to
rebel; and in all books it is written that the first signs of
the end of time are the outbreak of the Turks.

A number of trustworthy persons, on whose statements
reliance may be placed, have related on this wise, that the
name of the father of this Chingiz Khan, the accursed,
was the Tattar, Tamur-chi, and that he was the Mihtar
[Chief] of the Mughal tribes, and ruler over his People.*

3 Tamghij is the name of a territory of Turkistan, according to the old geo-
graphers, and Tamghaj Khan is the title or name of one of the Afrasiyabt
Maliks [see No. XXI.], but Tamghaj Khan is the name generally applied to
the ^" Badshahs of Tibbat and Yughmia,” and Tamghaj and Yughma are said
to have been the names of cities giving names to countries also. Yughma-oul
is also said to be the name of a city or town of Turkistan, the same as the last-
named place in all probability.

५ Tamur, with short a and short #, in Turki, signifies iron, and it is some-

936 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

On one occasion, whilst following the chase, a bird, the
name of which is Zughrul, fell into his hands, and his sur-
name [thereby] became Tughrul-Tigin.’ No one, at any
time previous, has shown that that bird has fallen into the
hands of a sovereign ; and they held him in veneration, in
consequence. ,

Among the tribes of Mughal was another Turk ° of im-
portance, a ruler and leader, and greatly venerated ; and
the whole of the tribes of Mughals were under the rule of
these two persons. They, and all that people were subject
to the family of the Altin Khan of Tamghaj, and paid
tribute to that dynasty ; but among them [the Mughals]
depravity, robbery, and adultery, greatly prevailed ; and,
both in their words and deeds, save lying, iniquity, rob-
bery, and adultery, naught went on. All the tracts of
[inhabited by ?] the Turk tribes, at the hand of their iniquity
and sedition, were reduced to misery ; and, for these rea-
sons and acts, they [the Mughals] were wont to be treated

times written with 7 for the first, and long # for the last, vowel ; chi is the
abbreviation of ८१7, and, when it occurs at the end of Turkish words, signifies
a maker or agent, as ८26 -८42, an artillery-man, dash mak-chi, a shoe-maker, &

Our author has fallen into some confusion here, however [or the text, which
is alike in all the copies collated, is defective], and has evidently mistaken the
Tattar chief named Timur-chi, after whom Yassikd named his son to com-
memorate his victory over him, for Yasstika himself. Here Tamur-chi means
iron-like, not that he was “a black-smith.”

5 This is the Awang Khin of after years. Tughrul, with short z in the lst
syllable, is described as a bird used in field sports, one of the falcon tribe, a
jerfalcon probably, and the above title is equivalent to the Hero [taker] of the
Tughrul Another name applied to men is written Tughril.

¢ Writers on ^ Mongols ” may be astonished to find our author saying that
there was among the Mughals another Turk, &c. He is literally correct, and
means a Turk ofthe Mughal I-mak. This chief is called Baisii farther on.

Our author, like all other Oriental authors, very properly calls the Mughals
and Tattars by the common name of Turks, according to their descent as
already recorded.

It may be well to remember here, that our author is one of the écv first
Musalman writers who wrote about the outbreak of the Mughals and the Chin
giz Khin at the time it occurred, and completed his history just after Hulakt,
his grandson, had captured Baghdad and entered Asia Minor. He had con
siderable advantages over Ibn-Athir in many ways. He was nearer the scene
he narrates ; knew many persons who were personally acquainted with the
Chingiz Khan and his sons, and actors in the events he records ; knew per-
sonally, and dwelt among, several Turk, Tattar, and Khita-i nobles at फ,
and in Ghaznin and Ghir, who knew how they spelt their own names and others
of their people, and the names of cities and countries ; and had no cause what:
ever to praise or make out Mughals to be greater than they were.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 937

with great contempt by the Court of the Altiin Khan, and
much money and a great number of horses used to be
demanded of them [as tribute].

When the father of the Chingiz Khan went to hell, and
the.chieftainship devolved on the Chingiz Khan, he began
to act contumaciously and disobediently, and broke out
into rebellion. An army from the forces of the Altin
Khan was nominated to lay waste and exterminate the
Mughal tribes ; and the greater number of them were put
to the sword, in such wise, that but a few of them
remained.

The remnant of them that escaped the sword gathered
together and left their own territory, and proceeded towards
the north of Turkistan, and sought shelter in a situation so
strong that, from any direction, it had no road leading into
it with the exception of a single Pass. The whole of that
tract was girt about with massive mountains, and that place
and pasture-land they call Kalur-an.’ They also say that
in the midst of those pastures there is a spring of consider-
able size, the name of which is Balik-Chak ;° and, in these
pastures, they took up their abode, and dwelt there fora
long period.

In the course of time, their offspring and progeny multi-
plied greatly: and among that body a great number of
men reached manhood. They all assembled and took
counsel together, saying: “ What was the cause of our

downfall and of our being plundered and ravaged, and from
whence arose our being made captive and being slain?”
All made admission [saying]: “ These calamities and misfor-
tunes have arisen through our great misconduct ; and it is
necessary that we abstain from thus acting, in order that
Almighty God may grant us assistance, and that we may
take our revenge upon the forces of the Altin Khan.’

7 Also, in two of the oldest copies, Kaliir-an.
_ * Se Gdr—In a few copies written Jak, but it is only the fault of the copyists
in writing हू for ~ A few copies, including the Printed Text, have je!—Abalik
but the ' appears redundant. In the Turki language Chak is said to mean
rapid, fast, violent, sharp, &c., and Balik or Baligh and Balak mean a spring.

* The flight of Kaian and Nagiz into Irginah Kin, is here, evidently meant.

" It will be easily perceived, from my account of the descent of the ‘Turks and
the i-maks of Tattar and Mughal, that our author has lost himself here, and
mixes up the overthrow and destruction of the Mughal 7-#a@é by the Tattars

3 0

938 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Certainly, to carry out this intention, a firm ruler is neces-

and I-ghiir Turks, and the escape of the two fugitives into the fastnesses of
Irganah-Kin, with the affairs of the Chingiz Khan at the time when he
assumed sovereignty, and the title just mentioned was assigned to him. I will
therefore now give a brief account of Tamur-chi from the death of his father
up to this period, in order to make our author’s account intelligible.

I brought my account of the Mughal 7-#a@ to a close with the death of the
Bahadur Yassika, in 562 प. [A.D. 1166-67], who usually resided at a place
styled Diliin-Yildiik, at which period the different tribes composing the
i-maks of Tattar and Mughal were ruled by no less a number than seventy-one
different chiefs, independent of each other. Every two or three families had
separate localities, and feuds and conflicts went on continually among them.

Tamur-chi, or Tamur-chin—the being nasal—was thirteen years old at
the time of his father’s death, having been born on the 20th of Zi-Ka’dah,
549 H. [27th January, old style, A.D. 1154], about which some recent writers
appear to be in great doubt [neither the Persian ‘‘ Raschid ” nor any other of the
‘* Persians *’ says he was born in 1155] and uncertainty ; and his brothers were
still younger. About the same time, the hereditary lieutenant or deputy,
Siighii-Jijan, whose care and counsel would have been so useful to young
Tamur-chi, also died, and Siighii-Jijan’s son, the Nii-yan, Karachar—the
great ancestor of Amir Timiir—was young and inexperienced. This is the
‘*tutor” appointed for him according to Des Guignes !

Of the 40,000 families of the Nairiin sept of the Mughals over whom his
father ruled, and his own kinsmen and dependents, numbers now began to
desert him and go over to the Tanjiits, until not more than a third remained
under his chieftainship.

He endured many hardships and dangers until he reached the age of thirty,
when fortune began again to smile upon him for a time, when, in 579 H.
[^.7. 1183], the Nairfins began to return to their allegiance, and Tamur-chi
succeeded in bringing some other Mughal tribes under his sway. In 584 H.
[aA.D. 1187-88] he became a captive in the hands of (पारा or Tirghiitae
Karfltiik, the Badshah. as he is styled, [great grandson of Hamanki, see note,
page 895] of the Tanjiit Mughals, who was descended, in the fifth degree,
from Kaidi Khan, the fourth chief of the Bi-zanjar dynasty, which see, and
to whom the other Nairiins attached themselves when they deserted Tamur-
chi, and against a confederacy headed by whom the latter was struggling.

It was not customary in those days among the tribes of Turkish descent to
put captives at once to death, and so Tamur-chi had a do-shakhah [a sort of
portable pillory, described as a block of wood with two horns, hence the term.
It may, in those days, have been formed out of two pieces of crooked wood,
but what was used in after-years, and continues to be used still, consists of two
flat boards with a hollow for the neck, a drawing of which may be seen in
Astley’s and other Collections] fastened round his neck, and thus was he
` detained in captivity. The Fanakati, Abi-Suliman-i-Da’iid, who finished his
History, and dedicated it to the ninth of the Mughal sovereigns of Iran [what
would he have said had he been styled a ‘‘ Mongol” ?], 287 years before the
‘*saga-loving ” writer who has been much quoted lately, Ssanang Setzen, was
born, gives the following particulars of Tamur-chi’s escape, which several
other historians also relate.

Finding an opportunity, Tamur-chi made his escape from the Tanjiiits,
taking his do-skékhak along with him, and concealed himself in a lake in the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 939
sary, and a severe Amir is required, to restrain the trans-

neighbourhood of their camp, in such wise, that, of his person, nothing save
his nose could be seen. A party of Tanjiiits was sent in search of him, and
among them there chanced to be a Siildiis [also written Suldiz], named Sir-
ghan or Surghan Shirah, the tents of whose family happened to be pitched
near that part, when, suddenly, his eye fell upon the fugitive’s nose. He
made a sign to him secretly—but how Tamur-chi managed to see, and notice
this sign, with his head under water, the chronicler sayeth not—that he should
conceal his head still more—but this must have been as difficult to do as to
see, considering that only his nose was out of the water. He then said to the
party, ‘‘Do you make search in some other directions: I will take care of
this part myself,” and thus he managed to disperse them. As soon as night
set in, Sirghan Shirah took Tamur-chi out of the water, removed the do-
shakhak from round his neck, and brought him to his tent, and concealed him
in a cart, under a load of fasim—the fine wool or hair with which goats and
several other animals are provided by nature in the cold regions of Central
Asia; but, as the party had discovered some trace of Tamur-chi thereabout,
and as Sirghan Shirah’s dwelling was near by, they began to suspect that Tamur-
chi must be hidden somewhere by him. They accordingly made search, and
even tried the load of paskm by piercing it with spits in various directions,
and wounded him slightly in several places, but did not discover him. After
they had departed, disappointed in their search, Siirghan Shirah mounted
Tamur-chi on his own bay mare with a black mane, supplied him with a little
flesh, a roasting-spit, a bow and arrows, and everything required for a journey,
but some say he did not give him any tinder-box or means of obtaining fire.
The mother of Tamur-chi, and his wives, had given him up for dead, when he
arrived in his y#ra¢t on the bay mare with the black mane, from which time the
Mughals held such an animal in great veneration. His son, Tilf, was a child
at the time, and, for some days before, had been continually saying that his
father was coming mounted on a certain coloured mare. This event happened
in 587 प्न. [A.D. 1191]. The descendants of this Siirghin Shirah subsequently
rose to high rank in the service of the Chingiz Khan and his sons, and, from
him, the famous Amir Chaupan was descended.

Tamur-chi had fought with the Jiri-dts, also styled Jajar-ats, a sept of the
Nairins, the tribe of Jamiikah, the Sajan, or the double-tongued [Abi-1-Ghazi,
Bahadur, styles him Jajan and Jaghan, which, he says, signifies possessed of
sagacity], and other Mughal tribes—the Tanjiiits, Kunghur-ats or Kungkur-
206, as it is also written, Jalairs, and Dirmans [‘‘ Durbens”’ and ‘‘ Durbans ”’
are out of the question] ; and the Bigi, Siji, and the tribe of Barlis, of the
progeny of Iridam-chi, were in alliance with his enemies, but Karachar,
head of the Barlas, remained faithful to him.

In the year 589 प. [A.D. 1193], when in the fortieth year of his age, finding
his enemies had entered into a confederacy to annihilate him, and that they
were too numerous and too powerful to cope with, Tamur-chi determined on
taking refuge with the Awang Khan, Tughrul-Tigin, and throwing himself on
his protection, considering the friendship which had previously existed between
his father, Yassiika, and that sovereign ; and Karachar accompanied him.

This is contrary to the statement contained in a recent work on the ‘‘ Mon-
gols Proper,” the authority for which appears to be Wolff or Erdmann, and,
considering what follows, on undoubted authority, must be diametrically
opposed to the fact.

302

940 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
gressors, and the violence of the seditious, to retaliate on

The Awang Khan was the ruler of the Kariayat tribes, a sept of the
Duralgin Mughals, and one of the most considerable of the Turkish
nation, and he was a monarch [Badshah] of great dignity and magnificence,
and was in alliance with the Altan Khan, the sovereign of Khitie. It was this
personage who, before he was styled by the title of ‘‘ the Awang Khan,” bore
the name of Tughrul-Tigin, from his having captured one of those rare birds
called a Tughrul. Tamur-chi was well received by the Kardyat ruler, and
his affairs began to prosper. The Khan was wont to consult him on the
affairs of his state ; and, at length, Tamur-chi rose so high in the monarch’s
esteem, that he styled him son, and assigned him a position of great dignity.

Surgeon-Major Bellew, in his Kashghar Mission History, previously referred
to, quoting some other writer, informs us that “This Aong Khan or Unc
Cham [!], the Chief of the Karait of Karakoram, is the Tuli [1] of the Chinese
writers, and the Toghrul of the Persian. He got the title Unc [uncle perhaps},
or Aong, or Wang, as it appears in different authors [!], and which is equivalent
to Khan = ‘‘Chief,” ‘‘Lord,” from Ain [!], the sovereign of North China.”
This is History truly !

For a period of eight years Tamur-chi remained with the Awang Khin,
during which time he did good service for him, and gained him several vic-
tories. Among these was his victory over Irkah Kara, or Irkah Kara [also
called Ukah-Kara], the brother of the Awang Khan, who was in rebellion,
and resisted his brother’s authority, and Yorkin [it is written by Abi-l-Ghizi,
Bahadur, Portakin, Bortakin, and Bortikin], and the Bigt, Tukta, the
Peshwa, or leader of the Makrit tribe [also written Markit, but the first
appears to be preferred] of the Kaiat sept, descended from Kaian ; but some
call them Nairins. After these events, the tribes of Tanjiit, Saljiiit, Kun-
ghur-at, Dirman, Jajar-at, Jalair, Uir-at, also written Iir-at, Yorkin, and
Katghin, or Katkin, and Tamur-chi’s former opponents, the Makrits, and
some of the Tattar 7-a&, entered into a confederacy against the Awang Khan
and Tamur-chi. They came to a compact, and took oath according to the
most stringent tenets of their religion, by sacrificing a horse, a bullock, a ram,
and a dog, to be faithful to each other; and, among then, there is no other
engagement more solemn. This was in 596 H.

On becoming aware of this, the Awang Khan and Tamur-chi got ready
their forces; and, at a place near the Biyiir Nawar—the Lake of Biyiir—the
hostile forces came to an engagement, and the Awang Khan and Tamur-chi
completely overthrew the confederates, and brought their necks within the
yoke of subjection. Hafiz Abrii states, however, that Tamur-chi fought 3
battle with the Bigi, Tukta, the chief of the Makrits, in 593 H., at a place near
the Karas Muran [i.e. river] before Kaltr-an, and near the river Salingah;
another, in concert with the Awang Khin, in 594 H., at Tiki Kahrah; and,
again, in 596 H., after the Bigi, Tukta, had escaped from the bonds of the
Awang Khan, which is the battle near the lake Biyiir already mentioned
above. Several other affairs in 597 and 598 H. are mentioned by the same
author, which are too long for insertion here, but I may mention that Jamiikah—
who had been set up as Badsbah by several of the tribes, such as Angiras
and Kiirlis, Kunghur-at, Diirman, Katghin, Saljitit, and some Tattir
tribes, with the title of Gir Khan—was overthrown at Sadi-Kurgan in the
former year, and the Kunghur-ats submitted to his authority.

After this, Buc-Rik, brother of the Tayanak Khan, ruler of the Naeman

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 941

our ८171165, and render the wreaking of vengeance upon

tribe, in concert with the Badshah of the Makrits, the Bigf Tukta, being
hostile to the Awang Khan and Tamur-chi, assembled a large army against
them, and the hostile forces having met at a place named Kazil-Tash, in
$95 H., but in 598 H. according to the Tarikh-i-Alfi, Biie-Rik directed a
Jijan, or Sorcerer, to have recourse to his art, which they term yadah and 654
which he effected by means of the sang-t-yadahk, the jade or rain-stone, men-
tioned in the account of the descent of the Turks, which, on being thrown into
water, forthwith brought on snow, mist, and wind; but these magical acts
recoiled upon his own army, which was nearly destroyed by the cold. The
few followers who remained with him were overthrown, a number were slain,
and the remnant sought safety in flight. A curious anecdote respecting the
Turks and their magical acts in this respect is related by Amir Isma’il, son of
Abmad, the third Samant monarch, but I have not space for it here.

After Tamur-chi had passed eight years in the service of the Awang Khan
in various offices and duties, and had, through his intercourse and intimacy
with him, acquired his confidence and esteem, and had been styled son by the
monarch, the chiefs and kinsmen of the Awang Khin ‘became envious of
Tamur-chi, and plotted together to bring about his downfall. Jamikah, the
Bashligh of the Jajar-ats, bore him great enmity of old, and he maligned
Tamur-chi to Sangin, the son of the Awang Khan, and convinced him that
Tamur-chi sought to supplant him in his father’s favour, and in the succession
to his kingdom. Guzidah, the Habib-us-Siyar, Tarikh-i-Hafizg Abri, and
some other works, however, state that the wrath of the Awang Khan was raised
against him through his asking of him a brother’s daughter in marriage for his son
Jaji, but some say it was on account of Tamur-chi not giving his own daughter,
Kichin Bigi, to the Awang Khian’s son, Sangiin, that the negotiation broke
down, and hostility arose. Jiiji did subsequently marry the damsel, and Tili
married another sister, and Tamur-chi, their father, married a third. Endea-
vours were now made to instigate the Awang Khan against Tamur-chi, but
without effect at first. By repeated importunity on the part of the son, for even
the dropping water at last wears the rock away, the conspirators succeeded in
alienating the old ruler’s regard for Tamur-chi, and he entered into the design
to seize him. These events are said to have taken place in 599 H. One of
the Awang Khian’s chiefs, Jadan, by name, who could keep nothing from his
wife, was mentioning the design to her, in his 4hargah, or felt tent, only the
day before it was intended to carry it into execution, when two boys, named
Batae, or Badae, and Kaghlik, came into the camp with the milk from the
flocks, and, by chance, sat down near the tent, and heard the conversation.
They at once made known his danger to Tamur-chi. He consulted with his
kinsman, the Nii-yan, Karachar ; and it was determined, as soon as night set
in, to make for the skirt of the mountain (range) of Kalichin with their
followers and dependents, and to leave their tents standing ; and this they did,
after havin, first despatched the women and children toa place of safety, called
Baljiinah 1017. That same night the Awang Khan came to the tents with
some of his forces, and, seeing the fires lighted as usual, ordered volleys of
arrows to be poured into them, and then, finding all was silent within, entered
the tents, but found them empty. He then determined to set out in pursuit of
Tamur-chi ; but how the Awang Khan knew whither he had fled is not
stated: the Karayats probably tracked him. The Awang Khan succeeded in
coming up with him during the next day, when halted for rest, and a picket,

942 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the Altiin Khan attainable.” As the Chingiz Khan had

- posted for the purpose, gave Tamur-chi timely warning of their drawing near
the mountain (range) of Mii-Awand or Mii-Awandur, at a spot called Holini
Nikat, that is, the place where red canes or reeds grow. Nothwithstanding
the disparity of numbers, being sheltered by the hill skirt, he resolved to make
a stand ; and at last succeeded in beating off his pursuers, A great number of
Karayats were slain and disabled, and Sangiin—who is styled Shangin by
some, but the three dots over the— ~.—seem over zeal on the part of the
copyists—was wounded in the face by an arrow discharged at his father,
whose person he shielded with his own.

This is the place where Mr. H. प. Howorth, in his ^" Mongols Proper” page
69, on the authority of some foreign translation says: ‘‘ He now collected an
army and marched against the Keraits. His army was very inferior in numbers,
but attacked the enemy with ardour,” &c. His ‘flight from the Awang
Khan ”’ is not alluded to in the least, and he must have been exceedingly clever
to collect an army, but, at page 552 of the same book, the story is told from
another translation in a totally different manner.

Tamur-chi thought it advisable however to withdraw quietly during the
night towards the source of the Balijinah—some say, the Lake Baljitinah—Bal-
jtinah Nawar—and others, Baljiinah Bulak, Bulagh, or Balik, signifying a spring
in Turkish, whither the women and children had been previously despatched.
This lake was salt, and contained but little water, scarcely sufficient for his
people to drink. If we consider that Kara-Kuram was the chief encampment
or dwelling-place of the Awang Khan, the retreat of Tamur-chi towards this
lake of Baljiinah, in which there was scarcely enough muddy water to quench
the thirst of man and beast, and his subsequent movements, are sufficiently clear.
The people of those paris, of his own Nairiin tribes, who had remained faithful,
and had become dispersed when he took shelter with the Awang Khin, were
dwelling in the tracts adjacent to Baljiinah Bulagh, under his uncle U-tigin, also
called Utichkin, and, when he reached them, on this occasion, they began to
gather around him, as well as many others from the Awang Khan’s territory.
At this time, at the suggestion of the Nii-yan, Karachar, Tamur-chi had a register
made of the names of all those who had accompanied him in his flight from the
presence of the Awang Khin, and assigned certain ranks and offices to each of
them. The two youths, Batade or Badae, and Kashlik, who had wamed him
of his danger, were made Tarkhans. He was not ‘‘abandoned by most of his
troops,” nor did he ‘‘ fly to the desert of Baldjuna,” as Mr. Howorth states
(p. 59), nor was he ‘‘a hopeless fugitive at Baljuna,” as the same writer states
in another place (p. 553).

The meaning of Tarkhin is thus explained: ‘‘ The person so called is secure
and safe from all trouble and annoyance ; in every place in which he serves, what-
ever booty he may take is his own, and he is not deprived of it ; he can enter the
place of audience of his sovereign without being summoned, and without first
asking permission ; and he can commit or be guilty of nine offences —nine is
a number, as I have already noticed, held in great veneration by the Mughals
—without being questioned ; and Tamur-chi decreed that, for nine generations,
the offspring of these Tarkhans should be exempt from all burdens and imposts.”

In the ^" General Description of Kashghar,” contained in the ‘‘ Report ” of
the Yarkand Mission, previously referred to, we are told [p. 100], as to the
५५ Ancient punishments before the 10th century (Moghul),” that, ‘‘ Under the
Moghuls, @ 2०८८८ was entitled to forgiveness nine times, but for the tenth was

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 943
become noted and famous among that fraternity for

imprisoned,” &c., &c. Something respecting the privileges of the Tarkhans
had apparently been mentioned to the writer, who straightway turned a// the
Mughal nobles into Tarkhans! In another place we are informed that “the
descendants of these Tarkhans were still met with in Khurasan in the fifteenth
century,” which is quite correct. They are also met with in several other
centuries, and in this #ineteenth century in many other parts besides Khurasan.

The descendants of the two persons above referred to were the progenitors
of two tribes, styled respectively Badae Tarkhans, and Kashlik Tarkbans.
The Tarkhans of the Dasht-i-Kibchak and Khwarazm are the descendants of
Badae, while those of Turkistin are the descendants of Kishlik. Several great
Amirs arose from these tribes, among whom was the Tarkhan, Haji, who was
the founder of a city on the Atil, to which he gave his name. It was known
as Haji Tarkhan, which, in after-years, was styled Hashtar Khan, but which
European writers have ‘‘ twisted” into Astrakhan, and not Orientals, as the
author of the ° Mongols Proper” imagines.

In the battle with the Awang Khan, among other booty captured, was the
khargah of that sovereign, which was of cloth of gold. This Tamur-chi
bestowed, with other things, upon Badae and Kasblik, and, in after-times, the
distinguishing mark of a Tarkhan was a piece of the golden cloth tent of the
Awang Khan, which they used to wear hanging from their turbans.

Tamur-chi now marched from the head of the Baljiinah, and pitched his
tents at a pleasant place on the bank of a river named the Ur or Aor Miran
[Un Miran १], at the foot of a mountain range on the frontier of Kalangie
Kada, or Kad, which is the boundary of Khitae on that side, and there he
mustered his followers, and they amounted to 4600 men. Leaving that spot
after a time, he moved onwards, and reached a place where was a piece of
water—the river Kalar (_,s—Kailar of our maps]. Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur, calls
it the Kila Siie or River Kiila—and, there being plenty of grass thereabout, he
determined to make some stay. On the way thither, with his forces divided
into two bodies, one with the women and followers, and moving on either
bank, he fell in with an Amir, Turk-Ili, by name, who had a considerable
following, and, on inquiry being made of him as to who he was, and his
intentions’ and objects, he turned out to be a Angiras, a Kunghur-at Mughal,
with a considerable body of that tribe, and he agreed to submit to Tamur-chi,
and was treated with great distinction. Whilst encamped at this spot, Tamur-
chi was joined by other smaller bodies of his other tribes, until, at length, his
force grew formidable. Having marched from thence, Tamur-chi despatched
from the banks of theriver Kurkan[,,¥, 3—some say fromthe Kala Nawar. Abi-l-
Ghazi says the Kolgha Nawar] an emissary named Urkie, or Urakae Chin, the
Bahadur, to the Awang Ehin’s presence soliciting an accommodation, and seve-
ral times emissaries passed to and fro between them, but terms of peace did not
result therefrom ; and his brother, Jiji Kasar, who had been taken prisoner,
and carried away with his family to the Awang Khan’s presence, now joined
him, having made his escape. On the last occasion, Tamur-chi despatched an
agent of his own along with the Awang Khan’s envoy, to throw him off his guard,
apparently, since he followed himself with all his forces, made raids upon that
monarch’s territory, reduced flourishing spots to desolation, slew great numbers
of his people, and made others captive. After some time, wherein the Awang
Khin’s people had suffered such misery, a battle ensued between Tamur-chi and
his forces, and the Karayats—who were vastly superior in numbers—towards

, 944 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRL.
manhood, vigour, valour, and intrepidity, all concurred in

the close of which Karachar encountered the Awang Khan, struck his horse
with an arrow, and brought it head foremost tothe ground. The Awang Khan
then succeeded in mounting another horse, and took to flight along with his son,
Sangiin, leaving his wives and daughters captives in the hands of the victor ;
and such of the Karayat tribe as saved their lives did so by submitting to
Tamur-chi’s yoke. The Awang Khan had fled towards the territory of the
Naema§n tribe to seek shelter with their ruler, Tibukii or Taibuki, the Taya-
nak Khan, but, when he reached the Tayanak Khian’s country, some of the
latter’s chiefs, without communicating with their sovereign, and on account of
an old feud, put the Awang Khan to death. Sangiin however managed to
escape out of their clutches, and succeeded in reaching the territory of Kirkiz
and Tibbat, and from thence got to Kish ghar—another writer states that he
proceeded towards Khutan and Kaghgbar, thus indicating the whereabouts of
Kirkiz—but he was subsequently put to a cruel death, in the Kashgbar
territory, by the chief of a branch of the Khalj tribe, of Kulij Kara, called
Kara Ma, who sent his family captives to Tamur-chi. The brother of the
Awang Khan, whose three daughters were wives to Tamur-chi and his sons
[परं and (प्ता, escaped into Tingkit. Of this person more anon.

As the whole of the Karayat tribe, and the forces of the Awang Khan, had
submitted to him, the mind of Tamur-chi being now at rest from anxiety, he
resolved on taking some recreation after his fatigues, He accordingly passed
some time pleasantly in the part, near which the battle took place, in pleasure,
and in enjoying the diversion of the chase, after which he set out for his native
yurat, or encampment. These events happened in the year 599 H. [A.D.
1202-3], when Tamur-chi was 49 years old, but some say he was 50.

After having gained this important victory, and as the greater number of
other tribes of the Mughal z-wa@% had bent the neck of subjection to him,
Tamur-chi assumed the seat of Khan-ship, at the camp or station named
Saman-Kaharah, which is also written Saman-Karah [Abi-!-Ghiazi, Bahadur,
has Naman Karah] which probably was near Dilin-Yildik, in Ramagin of
that same year, and the sovereignty exercised by the Awang Khan passed to
Tamur-chi ; but, as soon as the Tayanak Khan, also written Tayan, and
Tayanak, son of Balikto Inanaj, sovereign of the Naemans [a Turkish tribe,
but its direct descent is not certain], became aware of his predominance, he
set about organizing an army against him, and the tribes of Dirm4n, Katghin,
Makrit, and Saljiiit, the Badshah of the Uir-at, Alin Taishi, and some other
Bashlighs of the Kariyat, the Jajar-at of Jamikah, the Sajan, and some of
the Tattar tribes, it is said, entered into a confederacy with the Tayanak
Khan for the purpose of making war upon Tamur-chi.

The Tayanak Khan also despatched an agent to U|a-Kiish-Tigin, the Bad-
shah of the Ungkits, a Turkish tribe who had charge of the Great Wall [Accord-
ing to the ideas of Mr. H. H. Howorth, set forth in his ^" Mongols Proper,”
page 21, “ Tigin seems to be a form of the Turkish Tikin,” and, at page 26, he
says, ‘‘ Tikin & @ title borne by chiefs of Turkish tribes !”’ He fails to see that
“ Tikin” is only correct in the sight of those who do not know € fromg
in the original. That it is a Turkish title there is not the least doubt, and
hence it is borne by Turks and Tattars], asking him to join the confederacy,
and aid in putting down the new claimant to sovereignty, which could be
easily effected, if he joined him, as two kings im one country could not exist,
nor two swords in one scabbard, and not to refuse his alliance, as he would

` {एरर OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 945
naming him for the chieftainship [saying] :— “ For, save

remedy matters with the sword himself, even if he should reject his offers.
0la-Kish-Tigin, also written Alakiish, Tigin Kirin, however, was a saga-
cious man, and an experienced one. He consequently despatched one of his
Amirs named Niridagb, but, in one work, he is styled Burandish, and Kurai-
dish, in Alfi, which is probably the most correct, tu Tamur-chi, and made
him acquainted with the message he had received, and assembled his Ungkits
for the purpose of joining Tamur-chi, as he was much annoyed at the Tayanak
Khian’s message. Tamur-ch i held counsel with his sons and Amirs, and one
of the Nii-yins, some say it was Karachar, but others, that it was Tamur-chi’s
paternal uncle, Daritae Unchiki, the Ulkinit Kunghur-at, advised that if
Tamur-chi took the initiative and attacked the Naemans he would be successful.
That advice was approved of ; and, in the middle of Jamadi-us-Sani, 600 H.,
{in March, A.D. 1204], he commenced his march, and set out to attack the
Tayanak Khan.

He moved onwards until he reached the verdant tract of Kalangie, pre-
viously mentioned, but, on this occasion, no fight took place. Subsequently,
in the same year, Tamur-chi again set out to seek the Naemain Badgshah,
despatching a force in advance, under the Nii-yins, Kiildar Sajan, chief of the
Mangkit Nairiins, and Jabah. He then reached the banks of the river Altae—
y'!—{now Siba ?] in the territory of Kangaktae— .acs—Abi-1-Ghazi, Baha-
dur, calls it Altae Soning—ek,i_0 ylJ|—in the neighbourhood of which was the
Tayanak Khan, who had been joined by the Bigi Tukta, chief of the Markits,
and one of the chiefs of the late Awang Khan, the Karayat. At this juncture
astray horse from Tamur-chi’s camp, with its saddle turned under its belly,
entered the camp of the Tayanak Khan, who, when he beheld it, it being
very lean, held counsel with his Amirs, saying: ‘‘The horses of the Mughals
are miserably lean while ours are fat and in fine condition. It is advisable
that we should fall back so that the enemy may be induced to follow us,
whereby their horses will get into a worse plight still. Then we will make a
Stand and engage them.” Most of the chiefs approved of this counsel, but the
Tayanak Khan had an Amir, Kiri Subaji, by name, who, from childhood,
had grown up with him ; and he said to him on this occasion: ‘‘ Thy father,
Balikto Inainaj, was not at rest a day without battle, and never showed his back
nor the crupper of his horse to a foe. Thy heart is enthralled with thy
Khiatiin, Kiir-basti, and from thee the perfume of manhood emanateth not.”
Stung to the quick at these taunts, the Tayanak Khan, filled with rage, ‘‘ grew
hungry for the fight, like a roaring lion for his prey.” When the two armies
came near each other, and drew out their lines, Tamur-chi entrusted the
centre to his son Jiiji [some say Jiji commanded the left wing, and Tamur-
chi’s brother, [पौरं Kasir, the centre], and the two armies, having sounded their
cows’ horns and kettle-drums, engaged in battle, and Jamikah, the Jajar-at, with
his followers, having deserted the Tayanak Khan before the battle hegan,
marched away to his own y#rat. In the obstinate struggle which ensued, and
which continued until evening closed in, the Tayanak Khan was wounded,
and his body was so weakened from the effect of his wound as to be almost
without a soul ; and with a few Amirs he retreated towards the top of a hill.
His Amirs complained of this, and urged upon him the necessity, for his own
sake, of returning to the field, and renewing the conflict, but he was now too
badly wounded to be affected with their taunts and entreaties. Then Kiri
Subajii said to the other chiefs: ‘‘Since the Badshah dies thus deplorably in

946 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
him, no one will be capable to undertake the carrying out

adversity, better let ts show our fidelity, and turn our faces again against the

enemy, since we have given the Tayanak Khan to be slain,” and, with one

accord, like lions, they descended, and rushed upon the enemy, and fought

valiantly while life remained, 10 such wise as to gain the encomiums even of.
their foes. They all perished, but not before they had made great havoc

among the Mughals, who lost great numbers.

The Tayanak Khan having died of his wound received in that battle, his son,
Koshliik or Koshlak, or Kojlak, as he is also styled, fled to his uncle, Bue-
Rik. The Habib-us-Siyar however says that the Tayanak Khan, after the
battle, was conveyed to a place of safety, but that he died from the effects of his
wound before the end of that same year 600 H.

The females of the family of the Tayanak Khan fell into the hands of the
victors, and, subsequently, his favourite Khatiin, Kor-basi, was brought to
Tamur-chi, who, in accordance with the custom of the Mughals, married her.
A daughter of the Tayanak Khan’s son, Koshlik, named Likim Khitin,
was given in marriage to (पो, Tamur-chi’s youngest son. The Naeman and
Ungkit females are said to have been remarkable for their beauty, above all the
other tribes of Turk descent.

After Tamur-chi had been thus successful over the Tayanak Khan, in this
battle, the tribes and families in confederacy with the Naem4n sovereign,
being without ahead, for the most part submitted to Tamur-chi’s sway, but
the Naemans became dispersed, and the Bigi, Tukta, the Wali or sovereign of
the Makrits, was still hostile. Tamur-chi marched against him, and speedily
overthrew him, and reduced the whole tribe of Makrit to subjection ; but the
Bigi, Tukta, with Koshlik, the Tayanak Khan’s son, sought an asylum with
Biie-Rik, the Naeman, elder brother of the latter, as detailed farther on.

Most of the accounts of Tamur-chi’s proceedings, after the overthrow of the
Tayanak Khan, are somewhat obscure and confused, but the authorities quoted
in the Tarikh-i-Alfi throw considerable light upon these events. I must refer
to them briefly, leaving numerous details of the life of the Chingiz Khan, both
here, as well as elsewhere, in these notes, for some future day, when I hope to
give them in proper order, and detail.

About this time Jamiikah, the Sajan, the Jajar-at, was seized by his own people,
bound hand and foot, and brought to Tamur-chi, his mortal foe. He, consi-
dering that, as the Jajar-ats had not been faithful to their own chief, they would
scarcely prove faithful to him, commanded that the greater part of them should
be massacred ; and this, as will subsequently appear, was the treatment traitors
generally received at Mughal hands. Jamiikah was made over to a nephew of
Tamur-chi, with orders to put him to death by dividing him limb from limb,
because this was the treatment he had reserved for his rival, in case he had fallen
into his power, He bore it without flinching, merely observing that he would
have treated Tamur-chi after the same fashion, and telling the executioners
how to proceed ; and thus he met his end.

Tamur-chi, after this success, returned to his own y#rat, and despatched
agents to various tribes of the Mughals, and exhorted them to submit. Such as
did so were cherished, and such as refused were reduced and punished. In the
following year—6o1 H.—Tamur-chi moved against the Makrit tribe, which,
through their determined hostility, he sought to root out entirely. The Raugat-
ug-Safa mentions these events as taking place a year later. The Bigi, Tata,
the Makrit chief, having fled from the forces of Tamur-chi, took shelter with

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 947

of these matters, and this affair will not be accom-
plished, nor succeed at the hands of any other except him.”

another division of the Makrit tribe—the Urhar Makrit—the chief of which
was named Da-ir or Ta-ir [the Turks, and the people of the different 7-mas,
use @ for ¢ and ¢, and vice versa} Asin, who, with his division of the tribe, was
then encamped on the Taz Muran, or River Taz, hoping to obtain support from
them. When the Bigi, Tikta, and his followers arrived there, Ta-ir Asin
told them that he had not the power to cope with Tamur-chi, and so, taking
along with him his daughter, पाठ Khiatiin, he sought the presence of Tamur-
chi, who received him honourably. He then represented that, for want of
cattle, the whole of his people were unable to come and join his camp; but Tamur-
chi, being somewhat suspicious of them, would not allow him and his followers
to dwell in his own y#rat, but placed an intendant over them, and, soon after,
Tamur-chi set out for his own yz#ra/, as before stated. After his departure, the
Makrits, with Ta-ir Astin, took to plundering the Mughals still remaining
behind, but were resisted, and the plunder recaptured from them. After this,
the Makrits went away. Tamur-chi, on becoming aware of their proceedings,
resolved to uproot them. He invested one sept of them, the Udiikit,
who were in the stronghold of Bijand, which they call Waekal Kirghan,
took it, overcame several other septs of the same tribe, and then retired.
The Bigi, Tikta, with his sons and a few of his people, fled to Biie-Riik the
Naeman, the elder brother of the Tayanak Khan, while his own sept, with
the rest of the Makrit tribe, along with Ta-ir Asin, retired to the banks of the
river Salingah, near the fortress of Kiirkah Kinchan, or Kipjan [४ and there
took up their quarters. Tamur-chi on this despatched a force under two of his
Nii-yins, against them. The Makrits were mostly destroyed, and the remainder
of them were conducted to Tamur-chi’s presence.

In the month of JamAdi-ul-Akhir of this same year601 H., Tamur-chi, having
ordered his forces to be mustered, resolved to move into the country of Tingkit
—o 5 —also written Tinghit—5—and Tingiit—os—which is described
as a mountain country called Anksde or Ankasiae, of great elevation, adjoining
the country of Khitae. The Mughalsstyle the country, which contained cities,
fortresses, and fine buildings, Kashin [this is the country about which Mr. H.
प्रि. Howorth, in his ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” quoting D’Ohsson probably, says,
"° श्राणा, the Hia of the ‘Chinese,’ had been previously known as Ho Si,”
and had been ‘‘ corrupted by the Mongols into Kaschin”! Who is the autho-
rity that they or any one else corrupted it? On the very next page of the same
work we find that ‘‘ Tangut ” is “ Kansuh,” and, further on, that ‘‘ Kan-su” is
“dependent on the kingdom of Hia!’’], and, on the way thither, Ta-ir Asin,
the Urhar Makrit chief was seized and brought to Tamur-chi. Having
reached Tingkit, otherwise Kashin, the chief place, which appears to have given
name to the country—but an Uzbak writer says the country was called Ankasie—
the fortress of Lankai was taken by storm and levelled with the ground, and the
territory of Kashin was plundered and devastated. From thence Tamur-chi
advanced towards Kalangiish— _*,%k—or Kalankiish, which was a vast city,
and very strong. It was taken, and the greater part of the territory of Tingkit
was also plundered and devastatéd. From thence Tamur-chi returned, in
triumph, ‘to his own yirat again. Kara-Kuram, I may mention, is never once
named in the histories I have been quoting from, up to this period.

Every tribe, however, which submitted, Tamur-chi ceased from oppressing
and treating with severity, incorporated it with his people, and showed it

948 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI

The Chingiz Khan bound the whole of the people of the

favour and kindness, but those which manifested contumacy, and refused to
submit, he brought under the sword, both chiefs and tribes, so that, in this
manner, he succeeded in bringing most of the Mughal tribes under his sway.
Those among them who were with him in his first encounter with the Awang
Khan, whom he cherished, and to whom he had assigned certain ranks and
degrees, and given certain exemptions, as previously narrated, he now directed
should be formed into Zomans—ten thousands—Hazdrahs [there never was,
nor is there, a “ famous tribe’? so named]— Thousands— Sada4s—H undreds—
and Dahahs or Dahchahs—Tens: these words it must be remembered, are not
the Mughal terms, but the Persian translation of Un Ming, Ming, भ चट, and Un
respectively ; and these degrees have continued to be observed among them
down to modern times.

In the month of Rajab [the seventh] 602 H., corresponding to the Mughal
year of the Leopard—but the Mughal, Abi-]-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, says, the
year of the Hog—and to the month of February, 1206 A.D., when Tamur-chi
was, it is said, by several historians, in the 49th year of his age, but he was
really just 52 years and 7 months old, dating from the day of his birth, he
commanded that a 4uriltde, or general assembly, of all the Mughal tribes in
subjection to him should meet at a certain place, the name of which is not
recorded.» It was very probably Saman or Saman Kaharah, where he,
three years before, assumed the Khan-ship, and this may have been the cause
why so many authors confuse these two different events, and make one of them.
There, accordingly, his sons, all his Ni-yins and Amirs, from the parts around,
of the Tomins, Hazarahs, Sadahs, and Dahahs, assembled together, and a
great feast was made. He then set up a white Tuk or Tigh —standard—con-
sisting of nine degrees, or tails, indicated by as many tails of the ghajz gaii, or
bos grunniens, mentioned at page 68, and he was seated on a high throne with a
diadem on his head. Some authors, including the Fanakati and the autbor of
the Tartkh-i-Jahan-gir, with slight variation, state, that the causer of his set-
ting up this standard was a Mughal, held in veneration by the people, clothed
in the guise of a recluse, who used to pass his time in devotion, and whom, from
exposure to the elements in a state of nudity, in his wanderings, neither heat
nor cold affected. He pretended to the knowledge of the secrets of futurity,
and asserted that he was sometimes taken up into heaven; and the simple-
minded Mughals believed him. On this account he was styled by them Tab or
Tub Tingri—y5 | The first word has been altered into or mistaken for But
—=.—and translated by several European writers, but not by the original
authors, «^ The /mage of God.” Tingri certainly is the Turkish for God, but
०५ but,” signifying an idol, object of adoration, or image, is a purely Irani, not
a Turki word ; and it would be strange indeed if purely Irani words, in com-
bination with Turki, were in common use among Turks, Tattars, and Mughals,
at the period in question. For these reasons I think we are not at all certain of
the true meaning of Tab or Tub [This, very probably, is the proper name of
Malik Saif-ud-Din, the Khita-i, the XVI. of the Dihli Maliks, mentioned at
page 757, whose name is written in precisely the same doubtful way, and
without vowel points. ] Tingri, though, I should suppose, the Devotee of, or
Devoted to, or Chosen of God, or something similar, is much more likely to
be the correct signification.

His correct name was Kitkjii, — 925, S—or Kiukchii [turned into "° Gueukdja”
and ‘*Gukju” in the ^ Afongols Proper”) though some write it Kikchah,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INFO ISLAM. 949
tribes by pledges and oaths to obey him in all things, and

Kikjah, and Kikzi, and he was the son of Minglik Ichakah, the
Kunakkumar—,s&s—also written Kiinakumar—,45,3—who married Tamur-
chi’s mother. He stepped forward and said: ‘‘ Last night a person of
a red colour, seated on a grey horse, appeared unto me, and said: ‘Go
thou to the son of Yassuka and say: ‘After this they shall not style
thee Tamur-chi any more; for, in future, thy title shall be ‘‘the Chingiz
Khan ;’’” and likewise say thou to the Chingiz Khan, ‘ Almighty God hath
bestowed upon thee and thy posterity, the greater part of the universe.’ ”
All present repeated it, and with acclamation hailed Tamur-chi by that title,
because its meaning, in the Tiiri language, signifies in the Irani, Shah-an-
shah, King of Kings, or Emperor. The signification, however, is somewhat
differently interpreted by authors into ¢4e Great King or Emperor, Khian-i-
Khanan or ८१८ Chief of Khians, and the like. From that time this was his title.
Knowing how cunning Tamur-chi was, several writers have stated that the
appearance of Kikjii or Kikchii upon the scene was preconcerted between
him and Tamur-chi. It will be noticed from the foregoing that his proper
title is THE CHINGIZ KHAN, as in the case of the Great King, the Great
Napoleon, etc., and not simply ‘‘ Chingiz.” Another writer well informed as
to the Turks, Tattars, and Mughals, says that Ching—cels—signifies in
the Mughali dialect, firm, confirmed, established, and the like, the plural
form of which is Chingiz—;Ge The impostor was so puffed up with his own
importance, after the success of his pretended revelation, that he began to
entertain ambitious views for himself, until, one day, he entered into an angry
dispute with Tamur-chi’s brother, [पौ Kasar, when he took him by the throat
and dashed him to the ground with such violence that Kikjii never rose
again. |

After this 4uviltae, those who were in the secret of this pretended revelation
began to spread the report all over the countries round, and among the peoples
who had submitted to him, so that they began to believe that the Almighty
had really given the world to the Chingiz Khan, and future war and conquest
were chiefly considered.

The first victim of these pretended predictions was Biie-Rik, brother of the
Tayanak Khan, to whom Kosgblik, the latter’s son, and the Makrit chief,
the Bigi, Tukta, had fled for shelter. Biie-Rik, after he had made such
preparations as he was able for resistance, aided by the Makrits, was surprised
bya body of Mughals whilst engaged in the chase, in the neighbourhood of
Awaj Tak or Tagh [Habib-us-Siyar has Uligh Tagh] at a place called Sija—
ऽप] river ?—like the quarry in the net of the fowler, and carried off to the camp
of the Chingiz Khan, and was forthwith put to death. Some say he was killed
in the shikar-gah, or hunting-ground. Rashid-ud-Din says he was surprised
“‘after making a slight resistance,” which is rather improbable. His tribe on
this dispersed, and Koshliik, and the Bigi, Tukta, after directing their
followers to disperse and rejoin them, with as many others as possible, at a
certain rendezvous in Ardish, fled also to a place on the frontier of the Nae-
man country.

The ruler of Tingkit, Shidarkii, also called Shidaski, now began to
manifest hostility again, upon which the Chingiz Khan, being then near to that
country, determined to invade it. He entered it with a portion of his immense
forces in 603 H. [A.D. 1206-7]. The capital named Kashin—the Akishin
veil of Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan—which formerly, it is said, gave name

950 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
submit to his command; and, in conformity with the usual

to the territory, was surprised, and Shidarkii and his people submitted. He
was left without further molestation, it is said, on agreeing to pay tribute,
and permitting the Mughals to occupy his capital. Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur
Khan, says he was an aged prince or ruler, and that his capital was taken by
assault after a long investment, and its walls thrown down. From our
author’s accounts farther on, however, it will be found that Shidarkii had
often boasted of his defeats of the Chingiz Khan, and was, at last, treacher-
ously put to death by him. Kashin city was the point at which the great
karwans of traders met from the west and south in their trade with Khita or
China. It was a very rich city, and the abode of learned men. It is evident
that it was a city of the Buddhists, but few would recognize Kashin under the
vitiated name of Campion given to it by the old European travellers. In the
Kashghar Mission Report the route is referred to, at p. 114, as the Chachan
route, but, at page 139, of the same Report, Kishin is turned into ‘‘ Cash-
min.”

At the same period the Chingiz Khan, having returned from the subjuga-
tion of Tingkiit, subdued the Kirkiz territory.

In the winter of the before-mentioned year [603 H.], but some say the
winter of 604 H., which appears to be most correct, the Chingiz Khan set
out in order to attack the Bigi, Tikta, and his Makrits, and Koshlik and his
Naemans, who had again acquired considerable strength on the frontier of the
Ardish territory, which some connect with Tibbat, whilst others say that it is
also the name of a stronghold on the frontiers of the territories of the Makrits
and Niemans ; but that it was a fortress is very doubtful. Ardish apparently
extended to Tibbat on the south.

In Shaw’s account of ‘‘ High Tartary,” Artush appears as the chief town
of a district, watered by a river of the same name, lying north of Kashghar
city on the northern frontier of the Kashghar state. It appears under the
name of Artish in Colonel Walker’s last map, and, in the Kashghar Mission
Report, under the name of Artosh and Artysh. It is probable that this
name, correctly written Ardish or Artish [with d or], applied to a much larger
extent of country, now buried in the sands, extending S.W. as far as the
frontier of Tibbat, as anciently constituted, but the sands of the desert have
buried former landmarks in this direction.

Mr. H. H. Howorth, however, straightway, transfers this tract, in his
‘© Mongols Proper,” to ‘‘the land watered by the Irtish,”’ about 10° farther
North than the part indicated, even according to the map of ^" Mongolia ”’ in his
own book! West of the Yellow River it certainly was.

Although the cold was intense and the water frozen, the Chingiz Khan set
out with a vast army, and on the way the Bigi Kolikah, also written Kini-
kah, of the Mughal tribe of Uir-at [=] with his people, unable to resist,
submitted to the Chingiz Khan, and they were incorporated with his army,
and conducted it into Ardigh, where they came upon Kosbliik, and the
Bigi, Tikta. An engagement ensued between them, and the confederates
were overwhelmed by superior numbers, and Tiikta was killed by an arrow
in the action.

Kodi, the brother of Tikta, and the latter’s three sons with him, endeavoured
to carry his body off, but, finding this impossible, they cut off the head and
carried it with them. They, in company with Kosbliik, fled from the territory
of Ardish into that of the I-ghiirs, the situation of which has been already

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 95!
customs in force among that people, these important matters

indicated, and sent an agent of their own to the Yiddi-Kit, whose capital
was Bish-Baligh, and asked for shelter. He slew the agent, and cast his
body into the Kham [,#—in some A/SS. the point has been left out altogether,
and in others put under instead of over—hence it has been incorrectly styled the
JaM] Muran. This river is said to rise in the hills crossing the Gobi or
Shamo desert, to run S.S.W., and to fall into the Hoang-ho—the Kara
Muran—on the borders of Tibbat, and I believe, from the context, that this
is correct. I shall refer to it again farther on. This desert of sand has
destroyed many landmarks, and overwhelmed many cities, hence writers
are led to look farther north, east, and west for places, and to make
rash guesses respecting them, while they lie buried under the sands of
the Gobi. The explorations of the Russian Colonel, Prejevalsky, throw
considerable light on the parts about Lob Nawar, and the mountains to
the south.

The Yiddi-Kit, having slain the agent, turned out with his people to expel
them, and the fugitives, tired and worn out from the hardships they had
endured in their flight, after a slight skirmish, being unable to cope with the
I-ghiirs, went off, and the Yiddi-Kit sent the news of their repulse and flight
to the Chingiz Khan. Kosbliik retired, by way of Bish-Baligh, into the
territory of the Gir Khan of the Kara-Khita-i, while the Makrits retired to
Kam-Kunchak ost = [written el? in the Rauzat-ug-Safa], which has, by the
carelessness of copyists been turned into 34<)—Kibchak and o&l’—Kibchak,
and, consequently, the most absurd errors have arisen, and no wonder “the
country to which he went is not known.” This must not be mistaken for
Kam-Kamjiit—ogee" S—about which I shall have more to say farther on,
but as the tract east of Lob Nawar.

Koghliik was well received by the Gir Khan, who gave him his daughter
in marriage, the details respecting which, and his subsequent ingratitude, have _
been given in a previous note, on the Kara Khita-i dynasty; page 930.

After the overthrow and death of the Bigi, (च्छ the Chingiz Khin
despatched two agents to the Kirghiz or Kirkiz tribe, calling upon them to
submit. The Badshah, as he 15 styled, Uris I-nial, by name, finding himself
unable to offer any opposition, sent back with them an agent of his own with
presents, including a rare bird—the Ak-Shunkar—probably a white eagle,
or some bird of the same species, and made his submission. This event is
said to have happened in 603 H., but, as it certainly happened after the over-
throw of the Makrit chief, which, as already mentioned, some say took place
in 604 H., the submission of the Kirghiz may have happened in that year also,
for, in consequence of the Bigi, Tikta’s finding shelter in that part, the
Chingiz Khan called upon them to submit to his yoke.

The next accession of strength gained by the Mughal sovereign was the
homage, in 605 H., but some say in 604 H., of Bairchik— Gee ,,b—a ruler
of other tribes of I-ghiirs, which belong to the Mughal i-ma@& although they are
neither Kaiats, Nagiiz, nor Dural-gins. They consisted of over one hundred
and twenty different septs, and were descended in a direct line from Mughal
Khan, brother of Tattir Khan, which former was grandfather of Aghiiz Khan,
and the I-ghiirs were the first to join him against Kara Khan, his father, as
already related. In religion, the I-ghirs were Lamaists, and, in times previous
to those here referred to, the Bashlighs, or Chiefs of the On I-ghirs, used
to be styled [l-Iltar, and those of the Takiz 1-ghiirs, Kol-Irkin, or Il-Irkia,

952 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
were caused to be ratified. He said: “If you will be obe-

and, in after-times, when about a century of their sovereignty had passed,
those titles fell into disuse, and the title given to their ruler was Yiddi-Kit—
93 (s5e2—which, as regards the first word, in some A4SS. is written in such
a manner that the two points of the first letter ,—y—are run into one, and
made to appear as; 4—which alters it altogether. The proper mode of
writing it is evidently the above, with the @ doubled, which I have taken
from a work written by an Uzbak Mughal. In writing words of this kind
beginning with ; an alif—!—is sometimes substituted, thus Abi-l-Ghazi,
Bahadur Khan, writes it .55.!\—Iddi. It signifies ‘‘the Lord of Sovereignty,”
but some writers say, ‘‘ the Reigning Prince,” and his territory lay in Turkis-
tan. At the time in question, he was a tributary to the Gir Khan [The
‘““Aydy Cit,” of ^" Balasdghun,” as Surgeon-Major Bellew styles him at
p- 140 of the Kashghar Mission History, had nothing whatever to do with
Bilasad-ghiin : that was the Giir Khan’s capital. The Yiddi-Kit’s chief town
was Bish-Baligh], whose Shahnah or Intendant, named Shit-kam, dwelt at
his court. Having occasion to complain to this Intendant about his illegal
and oppressive acts towards the I-ghiir people, and receiving naught but
insolence and threats in return, the Yiddi-Kit, having heard the noise of
the Chingiz Khan’s invincibility, and being himself, with his tribe, descended
from the same 7-mdk, slew the Intendant of the Gur Khan at Kara Khwajah,
—a place still well known in I-ghiristin—and flung the body into the Kham
Muran, saying, at the same time, that no one was safe who was the
enemy of the Chingiz Khan, and he determined to despatch an agent to him.
The latter, who was, by no means, friendly inclined towards the Gir Khan
for giving shelter to Koghliik, the Naeman chief, on hearing what had
happened, despatched an agent named Dirbde, with a friendly message to
the Yiddi-Kit, and invited him to come to him, for the I-ghiir ruler is said to
have previously informed the Chingiz Khan that he had driven Koshliik, and
the Bigi, Tiakta’s brother and sons out of his territory. A few writers say the
I-ghiir was the first to negotiate. Be this as it may, according to the majority
of the most trustworthy historians, the Yiddi-Kit, dreading the resentment
of the Giir Khan, was well pleased to seek the protection of the Mughals.
He accordingly set out from the I-ghir territory bearing rich presents—for he
was a very wealthy prince—consisting of gold, silken garments, cattle, and
horses, among which were 1000 of high breed, and slaves both male and
female. This was in 605 H.[A.D. 1208-9]. When these negotiations began,
the Chingiz Khan was in the territory of Tingkit, whither he had gone, in
that same year, to chastise the ruler of that country, Shidarkii, who, with
some other chiefs, had revolted, and among whom was the Khan of Kirkiz
whose country was utterly ruined. The Mughals then appeared before the
city of Iriki [Polo’s Egrigaia ?, but, ina work written by an Uzbak, it is Arkey),
the ruler of Tinkit, thereupon made his submission, and is said to have sent
his daughter to be espoused by the Chingiz Khan. These events took place
in 606 H.

On his way back the Yiddi-Kit reached his presence with befitting
offerings. He was well received by the Chingiz Khan, and a liberal ap-
panage was assigned him. He solicited that he might be considered as the
Great Khan’s fifth son, being himself the son of a Khan. This was consented
to, and one of the Chingiz Khan’s daughters was given him to wife, and he
became his fifth son—his son-in-law.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 953

dient to my mandates, it behoveth that, if I should com-
mand the sons to slay the fathers, you should all obey,” ?
and they entered into a solemn promise accordingly ; and
the first command he gave was that they should slay the
sons of the great Amir Baisi,> who had been the associate
[in the chieftainship] with the Chingiz Khan’s father.
He [the Chingiz Khan] brought the whole of the tribes
under his own sway, and set about making preparations for
hostilities, and employed himself in getting ready war
material and arms. As the numbers of the Mughals had
largely increased and become very great, and an account
of this determination of the Chingiz Khan had reached the
hearing of the Altiin Khan, he nominated [a force of]
300,000 horse in order to guard the route against the

There is a different version of this matter, and, from the circumstantial
manner in which it is related, it bears the impress of truth. The Yiddt-Kit
served under Uktae and Chaghatae Khans during the invasion of the Musal-
- Man territories, and was at the siege of Utrar. After returning from that
campaign, when he presented himself before the Chingiz Khan, on the latter’s
धपय homewards, the I-ghiir king solicited an alliance, and one of the
Chingiz Khin’s daughters was Jctrothed to him, but the nuptial knot was
never tied during the Chingiz Khan’s lifetime. When Uktie succeeded, the
Yiddi-Kit solicited that the marriage might be completed, but, in the mean-
time, the lady died. On this Uktae betrothed him to Ulaji Bigt, his own
daughter, but before that marriage could be carfied out the I-ghiir ruler was
temoved from the world. On this, his son proceeded to the Ka’an’s presence,
and was married to Uktde’s daughter, but he too soon followed his father, and
was succeeded by his own brother in the rulership of his people, by command
of Tirakinah Khitiin, during the time she administered the government, after
her husband’s, Uktae’s, decease. |

After the Chingiz Khan had gained so many victories, and acquired such
power, the chiefs of other tribes and their people now began to submit to him,
and among them was Arsalan Khan, the most prominent of the chiefs of one
portion of the numerous Turkish tribe of Karligh [or Karliik : it is written
both ways] who submitted to him, and joined him with all his people. This was
in 607 H., when the Chingiz Khan was encamped at Kaliir-an. There were
several divisions of the Karlik or Karligh Turks or Turk-mians, as they are
likewise called by several oriental writers, as may be gathered from what I
have mentioned in the account of the Afrisiyabi Maliks, pages 907 and 925,
and in note 3, page 376.

I have now briefly noticed the most prominent events in the life of the
Chingiz Khan up to the time of his revolt against the Altin Khan, where our
author’s account takes its proper place.

° In a few modern copies—‘“‘ and fathers to slay their sons ’—in addition to
the former part of the sentence.

° The Printed Text has Baisiialso in a note, but in the page itself the particle
\ governing the oblique case, of, is so printed as to appear like part of the word,
thus!) sey

3 ए

954 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Mughals, and hold the pass [leading out of the tract
then occupied by them].

The Chingiz Khan despatched a Musalman, named Ja’far,
who was among that people [the Mughals], among the
forces of the Altin Khan under semblance of traffic ;* and
the Altiin Khan commanded that he should be imprisoned ;
and he detained him for a considerable time. The prisoner
[in question], by some good contrivance that became prac-
ticable, fled from that confinement ; and, by a secret route,
made for the presence of the Chingiz Khan, and related
the matter to him, and informed him respecting the
road by which he had come. The Chingiz Khan deter-
mined upon the design of rebelling, got his forces ready,
and first directed so that the whole of the Mughal families
assembled together at the base of a mountain. Heen-
joined that all the men should be separated from the women,
and the children from their mothers: and, for three whole
days and nights, all of them remained bare-headed ; and for
three days no one tasted food, and no animal was allowed
to give milk to its young. The Chingiz Khan himself
entered a khargah [a felt tent], and placed a tent-rope
about his neck, and came not forth from it for’ three
nights and days; and, during this period, the whole of the
people [there assembled] were crying out, Tingri! Tingri!

After three days, at dawn, on the fourth day, the Chingiz
Khan issued from the tent, and exclaimed, “ Tingri hath
given me victory. Now we will get ready that we may
wreak our vengeance upon the Altiin Khan!” For the
space of another three days, in that same place likewise, a
feast was held. At the end of those three days, he led
forth his troops; and, following the route by which that
fugitive, Ja’far, had come through the mountains, they
issued forth, and assailed the country of Tamghaj, carried
their inroads into it, and put the people to the sword.
When the news of the Chingiz Khan’s outbreak became
spread abroad, and reached the ^ [घ Khan, he imagined
that, perhaps, that army of 300,000 horse, which were
holding that pass ° and the high road, had been overthrown,

* In a few copies —J\.,—on a mission to demand peace or war—but he was
evidently sent as a spy.
$ Pass or Defile. Thusin the text, but one of the entrances in the Great Wall

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 955

and put to the sword ; and the heart of the Altin Khan,

is meant—that of Sali-ling-kiw ?—»5 J l.—which, according to Hafig
Abri, ‘‘having once been passed, the country of Khitae may be considered as
subdued.”

I must here also briefly relate what other more modern writers, who
wrote however under Mughal influence, state; because our author’s account
contains much that no others have related, and he was contemporary with the
Chingiz Khan, knew many of the actors in these events, and was not influenced
by the patronage of Mughal sovereigns.

Now that the Chingiz Khin, through the submission of the Yiddi-Kit of
the I-ghirs, had reduced, nominally, or partially, at least, all the tribes
between the Gir Khin’s dominions on the west, and Khita, or Northern
China, on the east, and most of the Mughal tribes, and had become exceed-
ingly prosperous, and his forces countless, he resolved to make an attempt
upon the territory of the Altin Khan of Khita, Shidai-Shi-o-shi—the
Ninkiassu ” of some European writers—to whom, for many ages, his fore-
_ fathers had been tributary. He wanted a plea, like the wolf in the fable, and
found one as easily, and certainly more justly, than another descendant of
Yafis has lately manufactured one against the ’Usmanli Turks: only the
Chingiz Khan acted openly, not perfidiously, or hypocritically : so, what had
happened seven and four generations before respectively, he now adopted as
an excuse for invading the Altan Khan’s dominions. The Altaén Khans of
by-gone times had put to death two chiefs’ sons of the Nairiin Mughals, as
already related in the account of the Turks, namely Hamangha or Hamanki, `
and Ukin-Barkak.

Orienfal writers differ considerably in their accounts of these events. It
appears that the Chingiz Khan continually conferred with his chiefs and
tributaries on the injuries and wrongs their forefathers had sustained at the
hands of the Khita-is, by reason of which the Mughal people were looked
upon with scorn by other nations, their neighbours. He recalled to them the
prediction [the imposture of Tab Tingri, previously referred to] that they were
always to be victorious over their enemies.

On this, the Khwajah, Ja’fir—the very same as mentioned by our author—a
Musalman of sagacity, as he is called, who had long been in the Chingiz
Khin’s service—as being a more respectable agent, probably, than a barbarian `
Mughal—was despatched to the court of the Altin Khan, to intimate to that
monarch his accession to the sovereignty of the Mughal tribes, and calling
upon him to render allegiance, and pay tribute to his former vassals, the
Mughals, in which case he might continue as heretofore to rule over Khita !
The Altan Khan treated the messenger and his demands with utter contempt,
and sent him away.

The author of the "न Mongols Proper,” who disdains all who wrote in Per-
sian (while his information is derived from translations from them), with the
exception, I suppose, of the ‘‘great Raschid,” as mere “second-rate au-
thorities,” ‘*muddy streams,” &c., &c., turns this Musalman, whose name
Plainly indicates his religion, and who was not a Mughal, into ‘Jafar
Khodsha,” and adds that he was ‘‘ one of the principal Mongols” ! !

Then occurred the tent and fast scene related by our author, but in much
greater detail. More particulars respecting the impostures of the Mughal

ruler will be found farther on.

After this, in the eighth month of 607 [March, 1211 A.D.] H., the Mughal troops

3P 2

956 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and of the whole of the inhabitants of the country of Tam-
ghaj, became much afflicted.

were assembled ; a portion, amounting to 10,000 horse, under Tughachar, also
styled Dalan, was left behind to guard the Chingiz Khan’s own camp and (ला.
tory, and keep the conquered tribes of Karayat, Naem§n, and others quiet, while,
from the remainder, two armies were formed : one was despatched under the
Chingiz Khin’s three sons, Jiji, Chaghatde, and Uktae, and some of his
Ni-yins, into Khiirjah [Corea of Europeans], passing through the country of
the Kal-imak, who had already acknowledged the supremacy of the Mughals.
There they committed great devastation, and sacked cities and towns without
opposition, the troops of that country having gone to join the Khita-i forces.

The country of Khirjah, or Khiirjat, is said to have been computed at
seventy tomans—700,000—that is to say, such was the number of fighting men
it had to furnish—and the city of Sikin [y54~] or Sunkin [८५६], as it is also
called, and the great city of Kiiking [49] or Kiyiiking [७५], which
was one of the greatest in the empire, was captured by Jabbah [our author's
Yamah], the Ni-yin, and destroyed.

Subsequently, Jaji, and his brothers, advanced in another direction, and
wrested out of the hands of the Khita-is, the cities of Ting—[possibly ei g—
Kiing]— Chiw — yep 0 yi — Siik-Chiw — +~ — Ki-Chiw—yes— On.tii -
usslysi—and Long-Ching—eleetigi—[one A/S. thepeiy)]. I may mention that
no languages are worse than the Persian, and such others as use the ” Arabic
characters, for recording foreign proper names, unless the scribes are very
careful to point the letters correctly ; and no language is so bad, probably, for
vitiating the pronunciation of foreign words as the Chinese, and, therefore, the
absolute accuracy of these Chinese names cannot be vouched for: I have added
the originals as I find them, but after comparing and anthenticating them as
well as possible. I have, among other helps, used four copies of Alfi.

The Chingiz Khan himself, with his army, received further reinforcements
near the river Til, also written Til, of Kara-Khitie ; and the cities, which lay
on the banks of that river, such as Baistie— s5~2:— and others, were taken.

After that, Ula-Kiish or Alakish, Tigin Kirin, chief of the Ungkit Turks,
the same who betrayed the Tayanak Khan’s proposals to Tamur-chi, again
betrayed the trust reposed in him. He and his tribe were subject to, and in
the pay of, the Khita-i sovereigns, and located in the part now approached by
the Mughals, for the purpose of guarding that part of the Great Wall or
Barrier called U in-Kin—,y95 wsl—by the Turkish tribes, and which was
built for the purpose of restraining the Karayats, Naemfns, and Mughals, and
preventing their molesting the Khitae territory. He had a grievance against
the Altan Khan, and admitted the Mughals within the Great Wall, and pro-
vided the invaders with guides.

The name Ung-kit or Uin-kit is said to signify the guards of the Wall or
Barrier. It is also written Unkut—<S! Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khin, says
the Turks call this Wall or Barrier Tir-kirghah [or Tir-kurghah]— 4,35, 5—-
and the Khifa-is, Ongu—,6,|

The Chingiz Khan and his hordes having been admitted within the Great
Wall, and having gained a footing there, he despatched bodies of troops in
various directions to ravage and subdue the Khitie territory; and two hundred
cities, towns, and fortresses, they destroyed or captured, including the cities of
Ni-sha—',i—Kiiching Chiw,—pe_ ve J—and Kin-Chiw—, 5५9

Some writers state, with regard to these events, that all the towns and

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 957

When the news of that disaster, plunder, devastation,

cities, which submitted without resistance and furnished supplies to the
invaders, were spared, but that all others were destroyed.

He then turned his face towards the Altan Khan’s capital, and metropolis
of Khitae, which, in the Tartkh-i-Jahan-gir, Habib-us-Siyar, &c., is named
Chingdii [945] or Chingti [क] where the Altan Khan then was. This
must be our author’s city of Tamghaj, that is to say, the chief city of the
country of Tam ghij.

When the Altan Khan became aware of the advance of the Mughal host,
he marched with his army, reinforced by the forces of Khirjah—a numerous
host—and took up a position to guard one of the strong entrances leading into
his empire, detaching a considerable body of troops in advance to watch the
frontiers and harass the Mughals if opportunity occurred. This could have
been of little effect with the Mughals within the Great Wall, and, evidently,
is the same circumstance as our author refers to ; but he says, more probably,
that the Altan Khan sent 300,000 horse to guard the entrance into his territory.
The sovereigns of Khitae did not usually accompany their armies, and Hafiz
Abrii also says that he was not present. Our author also mentions the same
Ja’fir; and the latter’s return, by a secret route, evidently refers to the route
by the Great Wail, betrayed by Ala-kiish, Tigin Kirin.

To return to the accounts of writers who wrote a century or more after our
author. The force detached from the Altan Khan’s main army, commanded
by the Amirs of Khirjah, was so far successful that, information having
reached it that the Mughals, after capturing one of the cities in the vicinity,
were then engaged, unsuspicious of the near approach of enemies, in dividing
the spoil in their camp, the Khita-i leaders thought this an excellent oppor-
tunity, and determined to endeavour to surprise them. They came upon the
Mughals when cooking their food, but the Chingiz Khan was speedily on the
alert, and his troops, dropping their cookery, were soon mounted, and they
speedily put the Khitd-is to the rout.

The main army of the Altién Khan, which had advanced to meet the
Mughals, when within a few marches of them, was found to be so much
fatigued that it was deemed advisable to halt to give it some rest. Its camp
was fortified by a deep trench in front, and the waggons or carts of the army
were placed on either flank. Hearing, however, that the Mughals were
advancing in search of them, they foolishly left this secure position, and,
despising the Mughals whom they had so often coerced in former times, sallied
forth to meet them. The battle was obstinate and bloody, but ended without
any decisive result ; for, although the Khita-is lost nearly 30,000 men, the
Mughals lost even more. The Chingiz Khan thought it advisable to retire
with his spoils towards his own borders, and the Khita-fs did not deem it
advisable to follow, as they were much worn out with long marches and their
exertions in the late battle.

Hafiz Abrii says it was one of the Chingiz Khan’s most famous battles,
that the Khita-fs were nearly annihilated, and that it took place towards the
end of 607 H. [about the end of May, {211 A.D.], while some writers leave it
out entirely. If the Khita-is were nearly annihilated, it is strange the

Mughals should have retired. The Habib-us-Siyar also says the Khita-is
were overthrown, and that the Altan Khan fled in dismay to his capital.
Fearing for the safety of that city, if the war continued, the Altan Khan now
summoned his minister and his two principal generals, to deliberate on the

958 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
and slaughter, reached that [great] army which was guard-

state of affairs. It was agreed that a temporary accommodation should be
entered into, if possible, in order to get rid of the Mughals for the present,
trusting to what events might happen hereafter; and to give themselves time
to make preparations for the future when onee rid of them. An ambassador
was despatched to treat with the Chingiz Khan, and the Altan Ehin’s
daughter, हणप by name, was offered him in marriage. This offer was at
once accepted for some cause—probably because he had lost so heavily in the
great battle, and because he found the conquest of the Altén Khan’s country,
at that time, and under present circumstancés, was not so easy as he had
expected. For these reasons, and flattered with the condescending offer of the
Khian’s daughter, and such an imperial alliance, the Chingiz Khan accepted
the offer of peace; and accompanied by the Khita-i princess withdrew from
the Altan Khan’s dominions to his y#ra¢ in the country of Kara-Kuram.

According to the Chinese historians quoted by Gaubil, the great battle just
referred to, took place in A.D. 1212 [= 609-IOH. ], near the mountain [range १
Yehu, seven or eight leagues W.N.W. of Swen-wha-fi ; and, in an attack
upon Tai-tong-fi, the Chingiz Khan was dangerously wounded, upon which
he thought fit to return home. The Khita-is on this retook several places,
among which was Kii-yang-quan.

These historians also state that, on the subsequent return of the Chingiz
Khan, in A.D. 1213, a still more bloody battle took place between the Khita-
Is and the invaders near Whayley, four or five leagues W. of Kii-yang-quan,
and that the field was strewed with dead bodies for four leagues together.
This coincides exactly with what our author describes at page 965,. which see.

As soon 25 the Mughals had withdrawn, the Altan-Khan left his son at
Ching-dii, with several distinguished nobles as his counsellors, along with a
considerable army, and withdrew himself from the capital, which was situated
a little to the north of the city, called, in after-years, Khan-Baligh by the
Mughals, and is said to be the Yen-king of the Chinese, situated a little N. of
the present Pekin, and, doubtless our author’s city of Tamghaj, by which
he does not mean to say that such was its name, but that it was the city—the
capital—of the Tamghaj country or empire. The Altan Khan retired to
Taiming— मन्ड —the Pyen-lyang of the Chinese, and called also Nan-
king, and still called Pyen-lyang. Its site is just where Kai-song-fu, the
capital of Honan now stands, which his father had founded, and which they
likewise call Anta-e or Inta-i [५.७1 7], which is somewhat doubtfully written.
It is said to have been some forty leagues in circumference, surrounded by a
triple wall, and situated on a river which they call the Chang or Ching-Khi
[»+eke and some the Ikra—|3!— Muran], and ‘‘ in which [on one side of which 4]
its foundations were laid. The breadth of this river is so great, that, between
early morning and evening, a boat passes from one side to the other, and
returns with considerable exertion.” On the way to this city, some of the
Altin Khan’s troops deserted him, and went away and joined the Mughals;
and the Chingiz Khan, on becoming advised of the Altan Khan’s retirement
from Ching-di, despatched an army under two Amirs of Tomans—the Bahadur
Samikah—[Hafiz Abrii has Sajikah], the Saljiiit, and another Ni-yan, to
invest Ching-di, which they did.

The Habib-us-Siyar gives a different account of these events, which agrees more
with the Chinese statements, which affairs are said to have happened in 608—
10 H. [A.D. 1211—13], that the whole of the northern part of the Altan Khan’s

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 9६9

ing the high road, through panic, on account of the state of

dominions was in a disturbed and disaffected state, and that disloyalty and
sedition prevailed, so much so that the Altan Khan’s son, through these disaf-
fections, withdrew from Ching-dii, and went and joined his father, and that
intelligence of the forsaken condition of that capital conveyed to him through
the governor of Khiirjah, who tendered his allegiance to him, induced the
Chingiz Khan to invade Khita a second time.

Another account is that the Altan Khan had given orders to ravage some
parts of Karad-Khitae [ie. north-west of, and beyond the Great Wall], on
which the people sent agents to the Chingiz Khan at Kari-Kuram, and sought
his protection, and the Khan of one of the disaffected parts, having gained pos-
session of one of the fortresses guarding one of the entrances through the Great
Wall, offered to admit the Mughals thereby. This statement is confused, and
refers to the first, not the second expedition, as I have shown. However, it
is farther stated that the Chingiz Khan thought the time propitious, and
determined on invading the Altan Khan’s dominions again, and that he
proposed that his I-ghiir and Karligh allies should take a part in the expe-
dition ; but, being unable, through sickness—caused by the wound perhaps,
teferred ६० ` previously—to proceed himself, the command was given to
Samiikah, the 5211५ his oldest Nii-yan.

The Chinese authors tell us that the Chingiz Khan, having retired from
Khitae, after the accommodation with the Altan Khan, and, having received
his daughter in marriage, in 1211 A.D., set out, accompanied by Jiji, to conquer
Kibchak—an error for Kam-Kunchak previously referred to— in order to reduce `
several tribes which had been subject to the Wang Khan, who had nought to
do with ‘‘Kipchak,” that the tribes inhabiting Jatah [European Getes]
submitted, and that, leaving half his forces with प, who defeated the
Komans, Waliks, Bulghars, and Hungarians, the Chingiz Khan retired to
Kari-Kuram. Now this is wholly incorrect, and caused apparently through
mistaking Kam-Kunchak for Kibchak. The Chingiz Khan never entered
Kibchak, and Jaji was not sent into Kibchak until several years after—he
never went against either Walaks, Bulghars, or Hungarians—as will be seen
farther on ; and it is quite certain that the Awang Khan had nothing to do
with their country.

The same writers also state that the Chingiz Khan determined to invade
Khitae again in consequence of certain threats of the Altan Khan, and, at the
instigation of the Gir Khan, who had been provoked by the Altan Khin’s
ravages on his territory, and who had, by help of some rebels, seized a con-
siderable fortress which opened the’ way into China. Here they have terribly
Confused matters. The Gir Khan dynasty had already terminated, and the

Ongkit Turks betrayed the passage through the great mound or Wall on the
occasion of the first invasion. ।

The Rauzat-us-Safa also states that another Mughal army was despatched
into Khirjah to prevent the forces of that territory from going to the aid of the
Altan Khan, and several places in it were taken. Meanwhile, the other army
is said to have been ‘met, on its advance, by the army of the Altan Khan,
which was pushing forward to meet it; and it is related that the advance of
the Mughals was defeated, but that, the main army coming up, the Khiti-is
Were overthrown and routed, and their troops took refuge in different cities.

The capital was strongly garrisoned, and the Altan Khan’s son is said to have
been there in command [this is totally contrary to the Habtb-us-Siyar, written

960 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

affairs, they became dispersed, and were slain, and made
captive.

The Chingiz Khan acquired domination over the coun-
tries of Saghar,‘ and Tingit, and Tamghaj, and he came

by the son of the author of the Rauzat-us-Safa], and the Mughals are said to
have been induced to endeavour to take the city by assault, but to have been
repulsed, and the investment continued for a long time. The defenders being
numerous and the inhabitants likewise, the besiegers determined to starve the
city into surrender, and subsequently it was taken by stratagem ; and, this
being reported to the Khita-f sovereign, he was so affected that he destroyed
himself by poison.

The Habib-us-Siyar says an attempt was made by a body of troops, each
carrying a portion of grain, as well as the followers of the army, to conduct a
convoy of provisions, to relieve the capital, but that they were intercepted on
the march and defeated, and the convoy was taken. On this two of the
Khita-i generals destroyed themselves by means of poison, and others escaped
to Tayming ; and these disasters were followed by the submission of the capital
and country.

The details of the capture of the city in the Raugat-ugs-Safa, and in the work
of the Turkish author, Abi-l-Khair, are somewhat similar to our author’s
account, the details of which he had of persons wha, shortly after its capture,
visited it, and therefore his account is of the utmost value. The date of its
capture is 610 H. [A.D. 1213-14].

I have now brought up the events in the career of the Chingiz Khan, as
briefly as possible, to where our author begins to give his narrative in greater
detail. Hafiz Abrii gives most elaborate accounts of these events, but I must,
for want of space, leave his particulars for another occasion.

6 This is the same name as occurs at page 267 and 270, and in the second
para. immediately under, and in the account of Tight [सा] Khan farther on.
The word varies in the different copies of the text from += lo #——j;—s
and—,»—without any points. When I wrote the notes to the account
of the Khwarazmi Sultans, I concluded, from the mention, invariably,
of Tingit and Tamghaj along with it, that the I-ghiir country must be
meant, from the third form of the doubtful word as given above—”—
Then again I thought the word must be—#—saghar—an ’Arabic word in
common use, signifying the frontier of an infidel country, but this, too, is, I
think, from what is mentioned farther on, also untenable, although Tingit and
Tam ghaj are still used in connexion with it. As, in Turkish words, occurring
in the histories of this period, the letters ¢ and 24 are interchangeable, I was
inclined to consider that the word here might be Saghar, or Sakar, or Saghir,
or Sakir, and that it referred to the place which the old travellers call, and
what appears in the Jesuits’ maps as, Sukkier, and Saker, and Sukquier, Sukuir,
Suchur, and Sucuir, in as many copies of Polo’s work, but this idea must also
be abandoned, for this reason that Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shih, never
penetrated as far east as the limits of Turkistan, in that quarter, in his pursuit of
Kadr Khan, with respect to whose pursuit in 615 H., it is first mentioned at
pages 267 and 270, and there it is stated as being in or part of ^^ Tatar,” and
‘‘Turkistan.” But it is also distinctly stated, on the former page, that, in
reaching this identical part—‘‘as far as Yighur [I-ghir]—that is supposing
—,#,—was correct—the Sultan penetrated so far northwards—I leave out the
‘North Pole”—that the light of twilight never left the sky all night ;” and,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 961

before the gate of the city of Tamghaj and seat of govern-
ment of the Altiin Khan [and invested it]. He continued

from note 3 to that page, even were the time midsummer, the Sultan must have
reached as far north as the parallel of 49° or 50° of north latitude, for such a
phenomenon to occur, and, consequently, Sakir or Saghir—the Sukkier, &c.,
of the old travellers, between Kashghar and Khita, is out of the question.
Sibr—,-- —Siberia, likewise, will not do, as the word is written very differently.

In the notice of Tishi [सख], farther on, referring to the same place and
event, it is said that, ‘‘in the year 615 H., the Sultan had gone to make a raid
upon the tribes of Kadr Khan of Turkistan, who was the son of Safaktan the
Yamak,” and that ‘‘ Tishi, from the side of Tamghaj, had advanced with an
army ’—-at page 269 it is said that ‘‘ Tiishi had come out of Chin in pursuit of
an army of Tatars,” and that refers to Tuk-Tughan, the Makrit chief, a
totally different person from Kadr Khan, the son of Safaktan-i-Yamak, but
who, at page 267, is called Yiisuf [his correct name apparently is Yisuf, and
Kadr Khan his title], the Tatar, whose father’s Turkish name was Safaktan,
and his tribe the Yamak. According to our author, Ulugh Khan, afterwards
Sultan of Dihlf, was connected with the Yamak.

In the lines of poetry with which our author closes this History, he styles his
patron, Ulugh Khian-i-A’gam ‘‘Khan of the Ilbari, and Shah of the
Yamak ;’ and Sultan I-yal-timigh is also said to have belonged to the I|bari
tnbe, which, at page 796, is mentioned as being obliged to fly before the
Mughals, ^" when they acquired predominance over the countries of Turkistan
and the tribes of Khifchak.”” Yamak or Yamak is described as the name of a
ruler and of a city or town, and also of a territory of Turkistan ; and some add
that it is also the name applied to the sovereign of the I-ghiir, but that was, as
already stated, Yiddi-Kit. Respecting the Ilbari tribe, which I believe to be
that which ancient authors call the Abars, or a part of them, I shall have
something to say before closing these notes.

In’Abd-ullah-i-Khirdadbih’s work there are some items of information which
may throw a little light on this difficult matter, but, still, a deal remains to be
cleared up ; and the copy of his work which I have referred to, unfortunately,
has been damaged by damp in the middle of each page for some thirty or
forty pages, in the very portion I wanted most to be perfect. He says, with
reference to the Ghuzz tribe, that ‘‘the Ghuzzin are a people, the Malik of
whom they style the Taghar—#—Khakan [_,4 is one of the words in some
Copies of our author’s text, and may easily be mistaken for # by a copyist],
and the capital of the Taghar Khakan is the city of Aral—J,| There
are Tarsah [Christians—Nestorians] there as well as Buddhists, and others.
The people are nomads and live in khargahs [round felt tents] and tents
(different to the khargah], but their Maliks wear dresses of silk brocade, and
silk, with wide sleeves and long skirts.” He moreover says that the routes
from that territory lead to Barsakhan— ys, —which is said, by another writer,
to bea place between I-ran and Tian, not a very satisfactory explanation, and
from thence to—Js«’—which, being without points, may be read many ways,

where the routes [or where other routes] meet. From thence to Sakit [? ok],
and then to js! lieesS—Kaghmi-ghasiir—and from thence to —S [it appears
tobe Hakat, but Jakut seems more probable, but I can only give the original
word as I find it], is a day’s journey. It is farther added, that this wz/dya¢ or
country—Taghar—is less in extent than Kuja — lg’ — described by another
author as a place within Chin. Now all this, it appears to me, tends to

` 962 ` THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

before the city for a period of four years, in such wise that
every stone which was in that city they [the defenders]
used to place in the catapults and discharge against the
investors ; and, when stones, bricks, and the like, ceased to
be available, everything that was of iron, brass, lead, copper,
tin, and pewter, all was expended in the catapults, and then
balishts? [ingots] of gold and silver they continued to dis-
charge in place of stones. Trustworthy [persons] have
narrated on this wise, that the Chingiz Khan, during this
period, had issued a mandate that no person in the Mughal
army should take any notice of that gold and silver, nor
remove any of it from the place where it might have fallen.

After a period of four years when that city was taken,
and the Altiin Khan had fled, and his son and _ his
Wazir became captives in the hands of the Chingiz Khan,
he commanded that, from the records of the treasuries and
the Mushrifs [auditors] of the treasuries of the Altiin Khan,
a copy of the account of gold and silver should be procured.
They brought it to the Chingiz Khan accordingly, showing
how many 62८2545 of gold and silver had been discharged,

show that the tract indicated in the text is no other than this TAGHAR [the
part indicated is described as a wildyat by our author] OF THE GHuZzZ, prob-
~ ably as far north as the Aral Nawar, and that, from the two words having been
mistaken in A/S. for one, the puzzling, but incorrect, I believe, subject of
‘*Taghazgaz” has arisen [4,4 out of j# 33], the chief of which, like several
others in Turkistan, bore the title of Khakan.

Ibn-Haukal says, speaking of Chin, if you wish to procced westward from
the east, you come by Kharkhiz [this has no reference to the Karghiz}, and
Ghazghuzz— 4 [4 4 Taghar-i-Ghuzz?], and by Kimak to the sea, a four
months’ journey. Again he says, in another place, that Ghuzz is the boundary
of the land of the Turks, from Khurz and Kimak, and to a'4— Khuranjiah ?
—and Bulghar, and the boundary on the land of the Musalmans from Gurgan
[Jurjaniah of the ’Arabs] to Barab [1. €. Farab] and Isfanjab.

I was in hopes that M. Barbier de Meynard’s edition of ’Abd-ullah-i-Khur-
dadbih, published in the ‘‘ Journal Astatique,” for 1865, would help me here, but
the names of places are so fearfully incorrect as to render it perfectly useless for
the purpose. For example: the well-known city of Nighapir is written with
< instead of 2 ; Isriishtah—23,.|—is written Ishrisnah—2~)+!; Ugh, in the
same way, although so well-known, is printed Us|—Al-Ghiir—, yal is printed
jg2\—Al-a’iiz, and so on.

7 A balish or balisht signifies a pillow or bolster for the head, but, here, an
ingot of gold or silver in the form of a pillow or bolster, which, in former days,
was current among the the Turks. A 4da/ish of gold is said to have weighed
eight miska/s and two dangs, and a balish of silver, eight dirams and two
dangs, but the da/isk here referred to must have been of far greater weight to
have been of any effect on this occasion.

11 Upsr \,।

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 963

and, according to those records, he required the whole of
the gold and silver : and he obtained it so that not a single
bar thereof was missing.

From the Sayyid-i-Ajall [most worthy Sayyid], Baha-
ud-Din, the Razi—on whom be peace!—who was a
Sayyid of noble nature, and of manifest lineage, this ser-
vant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saraj, who is the compiler of
this TABAKAT, heard, that Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm
Shah—on whom be the Almighty’s mercy !—despatched
him on a mission to the Chingiz Khan, and the reason for
sending it was, that, when the account of the outbreak of
the Chingiz Khan, and the predominance of the Mughal
forces over the territories of Tamghaj, and countries of
Saghar® and Tingit, and the regions of Chin, from the
extreme east, was brought to the hearing of Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, he was desirous of investi-
gating, by means of trustworthy persons of his own, the
truth of ‘this statement, and to bring certain information
respecting the condition and amount of the Mughal
forces and their weapons and warlike apparatus.’ The
writer [of this book] who is Minhaj-i-Saraj, in the year
617 H., which was the first year of the Mughal forces’
crossing the Jihiin into Khurasan, heard, whilst within the
fortress of Tilak, from. the lips of the ’Imad-ul-Mulk,
Taj-ud-Din, the Jami, the Dabir [secretary], who was
one of the ministers of state of the Khwarazm-Shahi
dynasty, that the ambition to appropriate the countries of
Chin' had become implanted in the heart of Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and he was constantly
making inquiry respecting those states, and used to ask
comers from the territories of Chin, and the extreme limits
of Turkistan, about them. “We [his] servants ” [continued

$ This name varies just as before in the different copies of the text.
-According to our author’s statements at pages 268 and 270, and in his notice
of Tighi [Jiji], between the seizure of the Chingiz Khan’s merchants and
envoys and the Sultan’s return from "चु, that is to say, in 615 H., the
Sultan had penetrated into this part in pursuit of Kadr Khan, the Tatar, son
of Safaktan, the Yamak, referred to at page 961, but his accounts are some-
what confused, wanting detail, and other writers do not refer to this particular

® The idiom varies considerably in different copies here, as in other places
previously mentioned.

1 A few copies have “ Hind and Chin.”

964 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Taj-ud-Din] “used to make representation in order to lead
him from entertaining that resolution, but in no manner
was that thought to be removed from his mind until he
despatched the Sayyid-i-Ajall, Bahd-ud-Din, the R4z1, for
that important affair.” 2

° Hamd-ullah, the Mustawfi, in his Tarfkh, says [see also note +, page
265] that, before this catastrophe, the Chingiz Khan sent an envoy into I-rin,
and entered into a treaty with the Sultan of Khwdarazm, that compacts were
entered into, and letters passed between them, and that the treaty was ratified.
Merchants are said to have proceeded to the srdz of the Mughal ruler, without
hesitation, on this understanding between the two rulers ; and it is stated that
the Chingiz Khan sent envoys and merchants of his own, a second time, along
withthem. This cannot be correct from the statement of the Sayyid, Baha-ud-
Din, who went thither, as our author relates ; and the one despatch of envoys
and merchants on this single occasion has evidently been made into two. It
is also asserted that, as early as 614 H., after his return from Ghaznin, the
Sultan began to show less respect towards the Mughals, but the Sultan
came to Ghaznin two years before that date, and in 615 H. invaded the
northern parts of Asia. [See preceding note ®.} In the year 614 H., the
Khalifah, Un-Nasir, is said to have instigated the Mughal to attack the
Sultan, as previously related in the note first referred to, to which the Chingiz
Khan is said to have replied that the restless nature of the Sultan would soon
afford a plea for attacking him.

Rashid-ud- Din and Mir Khawind state, that one cause of ill feeling on the
part of the Mughal ruler towards the Musalman Sultan was, that the latter had
despatched bodies of troops occasionally into parts under allegiance to the
Mughals, and ill-treated the people, as though war had actually commenced,
and, at last, overran a territory belonging to Koshliik, the Nieman sovereign,
which the Chingiz Khan considered his by right-of conquest. Notwithstanding
all this, it is said, the Mughal ruler was still inclined to keep on good terms
with the Sultan. This statement is not correct, however, as may be seen from
note +, page 268, and in the account of डं [प] farther on. The invasion
of the territory in question—<Ardish [turned into ‘‘ Arw/sk” in the Kashghar
Mission History]— they say, was when the Sultan fell in with a Mughal army
under Jiji, and compelled it to fight, but, on that occasion, the Sultan’s
intention was to protect his own territories from invasion by fugitives flying
from the Mughals, not to attack them.

Petis dela Croix in his ‘‘ Gengkiscan,”’ pages 158 to 164, causes Abi-l-Khair
and Raghid to make a terrible blunder respecting the battle which took place
between the Mughals under Jiji, after the defeat of the Makrits, and the
Sultan, which he has previously correctly mentioned as having taken place in
A.D. 1216 [H. 613], and makes out that a great battle was fought between the
Sultan and the Chingiz Khan in person, in a.p. 1218 [H. 615], while they
never once met. He says the Sultan made secret levies of troops, and all those
available from ‘‘Corassan, Balc, the Borders of India, and other parts of
Iran,” were directed to acsemble at ‘‘ Feraber,”’ a town of ‘‘ Bocara;”’ that
the Sultan’s army amounted to 300,000 or 400,000 men, but yet was far in-
ferior tothe Mughal host. The Sultan is then said to have found the enemy at
५८ Carcou,”’ and an indecisive battle was the result. The details, however, are
simply those of the battle which took place between the Gir Khan and the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 965

The Sayyid, Bahad-ud-Din, related * after this manner :-—

“When we arrived within the boundaries of Tamgh§aj, |
and near to the seat of government of the Altiin Khan,
from a considerable distance a high white mound appeared
in sight, so distant, that between us and that high place
was a distance of two or three stages, or more than that.
We, who were the persons sent by the Khwarazm Shahi
government, supposed that that white eminence was per-
haps a hill of snow, and we made inquiries of the guides
and the people of that part [respecting it], and they replied:
“The whole of it is the bones of men slain.” When we had
proceeded onwards another stage, the ground had become
so greasy and dark from human fat, that it was necessary
for us to advance another three stages on that same road,
until we came to dry ground again.‘ Through the infec-
tions [arising] from that ground, some [of the party] be-
came ill, and some perished. On reaching the gate of the
city of Tamghaj, we perceived, in a place under a bastion
of the citadel, an immense quantity of human bones col-
lected. Inquiry was made, and people replied, that, on the
day the city was captured, 60,000 young girls, virgins,
threw themselves from this bastion of the fortress and
destroyed themselves, in order that they might not fall
captives into the hands of the Mughal forces, and that all
these were their bones.

When we saw the Chingiz Khan, they brought in bound,

Sultan referred to in note}, page 262, and note !, page 980, which see, and
thus asad confusion of events is the result.

3 This worthy official is, I find, a totally different person from Badr-ud-Din,
referred to in note 7, page 270. I think therefore that such testimony is to be
preferred to statements written about a century after by writers in the employ
of Mughal sovereigns.

4 It is said that the number of killed in the great battle referred to in para.
eighteen, of note 5, page 954, was so great that the beasts of the field and fowls
of the air enjoyed their obscene feasts for more than a year, on that battle-field.

5 Other, but much more modern writers, state that the Chingiz Khan, after
his successes m Khita, whither he did not proceed in person on the second
invasion of that country, as already noticed, returned to his y#ra?, and sent
officers in command of numerous troops to guard his conquests. From our
author’s statement above, contrary to all others, and derived from the Sayyid,
Baha-ud-Din, an eye-witness, the Chingiz Khan was himself at Tamghij
when the Sultan’s agents had this interview with him.

Surgeon-Major Bellew tells us that ^^ Changiz,” leaving strong garrisons in
^" Tughir ” (!} and its frontiers, returned to his Yurt or ^" country seat” [sic] at

966 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

where we were, the son of the Altiin Khan, and the Wazir
of his father ; and, at the time of our return, the Chingiz
Khan sent a great number of rareties and offerings with us
for presentation to Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah,
and said : ‘Say ye unto Khwarazm Shah, “I am the sove-
reign of the sun-rise, and thou the sovereign of the sun-
set. Let there be between us a firm treaty of friendship,
amity, and peace, and let traders and kérwans on both
sides come and go, and let the precious products and
ordinary commodities which may be in my territory be
conveyed by them into thine, and those of thine, in the
same manner, let them bring into mine.”’* Among the
rareties and presents that the Chingiz Khan sent to Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, was a nugget of pure’ gold
as big as a camel’s neck, which they had brought to him
(the Chingiz Khan] from the mountain [range] of Tam-
ghaj, so that it was necessary to convey that piece of gold
upon a cart. With us also he despatched five hundred
camels laden with gold, silver, silks, kazz°-i-KAttde [a
coarse kind of woven silk of Khita], zarghé [a silken fabric
red in colour], £umdiiz [beaver],’ samur [sable], and raw
silk, and elegant and ingenious things of Chin and Tam-
ghaj, along with merchants of his own; and the majority
of those camels were laden with gold and silver. When
Utrar was reached, Kadr Khan' of Utrar acted in a per-

Shaman Gara = ‘‘The Shaman’s home.” 1 wonder what a barbanan
Mughal’s ‘‘ country seat”? may have been. The Shaman’s home—in what
language ‘‘Gara” may mean ‘‘home” is not stated—refers probably to the
place called Saman-Kaharah, where he was chosen Khan. See previous
note, paragraph twenty-five, page 937.

¢ Abiu-l-Fidi says the envoys and merchants came from Mugbhiilistan
through Kara-Khitae, and Turkistén. No doubt, they took the ordinary
caravan-route by Turfan.

7 In some copies of the text, ‘‘a piece of beaten gold :” in others, as
rendered above, which is doubtless the correct version.

४ This word also means any description of fur made up into garments, but
here the meaning is as above. Khita-i, in itself, is, I believe, the name of a
fabric, also called nankeen by Europeans.

9 According to some writers who explain the word, the animal is some-
thing like a fox, and some say, like an otter. It may mean the fur of the
black fox or of the beaver.

1 Our author has made this same mistake before. His title was Ghi-ir
Khan, not Kadr Khan, and his name was Ania] Jik. See note 7, page 27!.

In the Geographical Magasine for June, 1877, Mr. H. H. Howorth, who

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM: 967

fidious manner, and sought permission from Sultan Mu-
hammad, Khwiarazm Shah, and, out of covetousness of that
large amount of gold and silver, had the whole of the
traders and travellers, and the emissaries [from the Chingiz
Khan], slaughtered, so that not one among them escaped
with the exception of a camel man who was at a bath, who,
during that occurrence, managed to get out by way of the
fireplace of the hot-bath, adopted a contrivance for his
own safety, and, by way of the desert, returned to the terri-
tories of Chin and Tamgh§j.

When he acquainted the Chingiz Khan with the particu-
lars of that perfidy, and as Almighty God had so willed
that this treachery should be the means of the ruin of the
empire of Islam, it became evident that “the command of
God is an inevitable decree,”? and the instruments of the
predetermined will of fate became available—From Thy
wrath preserve us, O God!”

This servant of the victorious government, Minhaj-i-Saraj,
heard from the son of Malik Rukn-ud-Din of Khaesar of
Ghir, who heard (the particulars] from Shah ’Usman of
Sistan,® who was one among the Princes of Nimroz, and a
favourite of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and the
Shah [1570211] swore that, for every treasury in which was

makes rash guesses and assertions on Turks, ‘‘ Mongols,” etc., says, referring
to this person, that he was named /na/juk and entitled Ghair Khan, “which
is probably a corruption either of the Gur Khan or, as the author of the
Tabakat-i-Nasiri makes it, of Kadr Khan.” In his ‘‘ Mongols Proper,’ on
the other hand, we are told in one place, that he was named ‘‘Inaljek,” and,
that Sultan ^^ Muhammed ordered that he was mo longer to be styled Inaljek
but Ghair Khan (? a form of Gur Khan) ; in a second place , that he was called
Jnallzig ; and, in a third, that he was named /nad/zik, and ‘‘had been
granted the title of Gur Kian by the former chief of Kara Khitai!!”" Now
“Gha-irKhan ” is no more a form of Gur Khan than this Kankuli Turk was a
९५ Ghoz,” or an ^^ original Ghuse.’’? (दत ज isa purely ’Arabic word, derived
from the same root as ghairat, and signifies the Khan jealous in point of
honour or love, the high-minded Khan: it was his Musalman title. The
«८ Tabakat-i- Nasiri”’ quoted, if my translation is referred to, certainly does not
make Gha-ir Khan a form of Kadr Khin, for Kadr has a totally different
meaning, and is in no way connected with Gha-ir.

2 Kur’ANn: Chap. xxxiii. verse 38.

3 Shah ’Usmin, grandson of Nasir-ud-Din, Usmian-i-Harab, ruler of
Sijistin and Nimroz, also styled Nusrat-ud-Din, ’Usmin, by our author at
pages 193 and 196, which see, also pages 200—201. He was related, on the
mother’s side, to Malik Rukn-ud-Din, of Khaesar of Ghir.

968 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

a bit‘ of that gold or silver belonging to the traders of the
Chingiz Khan, the whole of such treasury, sovereignty
and country fell into the hands of the Chingiz Khan and
the Mughal forces.

May Almighty God preserve the kingdom of our Sultan
of Sultans from calamity such as that !

HISTORY OF THE EVENTS WHICH HAPPENED IN ISLAM.

Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that, when
that fugitive [camel-driver] stated to the Chingiz Khan, the
accursed, what had befallen his traders and emissaries, the
Chingiz Khan issued commands so that the forces of
Turkistan, Chin, and Tamghaj, assembled. Six hundred’
banners were brought out, and under each banner were one
thousand horsemen, and six hundred thousand horses were
assigned to the Bahadurs : ° they call a warrior, Bahadur. To
every ten horsemen three head of ##4-/z sheep 7 were given,
with orders to dry them; and they took, along with them,
an iron cauldron, and a skin of water; and the host pro-

ceeded on its way.

From the place where the Mughals then were, on the
frontier of the Chingiz Khan's territory, to Utrar,® was a
three months’ march, entirely through wild and uncultivated
tracts; and it was commanded that it was necessary to per-
form that march of three months, and subsist upon this

4 In some copies a dang—a bit, &c., and in others a diramak, the dimi
nutive form of dtram.

$ The number given at page 273 is 700,000, The Calcutta Printed Text
has 800,000, a few modern copies 300,000, but the above number is confirmed
by other authors.

6 Surgeon-Major Bellew, in his Kashghar Mission History [page 141], does
not quote the ^ 7adcdti Nasart,” as he styles it, correctly. There is nothing
in our author’s work, as may be here seen, about ‘‘horses for the baggage of
the army, its carts, and families, &c.,” not even in the Calcutta Text, nor does
our author make any such statement as that, ‘‘just at the time he [‘ Changiz’]
was preparing to set out against Khwahrizm Shah, he received envoys in 615
from the Khalif [sic] Nasir of Baghdad urging him to do so.” The Doctor
must have been thinking of some other work.

7 jis —tuk-li—or = -- 4-47-8 sheep of six months old—a half-grown
sheep. At page 273, our author says Mughali sheep, which is, doubtless, an
error on the part of the copyists for ८५४६-7.

8 The Calcutta Text is always incorrect with respect to the name of this
well-known city, which was situated onthe Sihin. Its ruins are still to be seen
on the east bank.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 969

quantity of provision, and to eke it out with gumiz and
the milk of their mares;’ and, placing herds of horses
in front of them, so numerous that their numbers cannot
be computed, they turned their faces towards the land of
Islam.

Towards the end of the year 616 H., they emerged on
the frontier of Utrar,’ at which place the violence had been
hatched ; and, ‘although they were jaded from their journey
and destitute, yet such was the energy, constancy, and
intrepidity, which Almighty God had implanted in the
nature of the Chingiz Khan and the Mughal army, that,

9 Here again, the Printed Text has shrab—p\,5—for shir-i-asp— ~) see

1 Petis de la Croix makes the astounding statement [page 158] on the
authority, it would appear, of ^ Abulfaraje,” and ‘‘ Bin Abdallatif,” as he
styles them, that ‘‘ Historians do not precisely mention the places by which
the Afoguls entered into the King of Carisme’s Dominions,” and yet, imme-
diately after, says, ‘‘ They only assure us that he marched by Caracatay and
Turquestarz . . . and that his troops entered into the Province of Farad, of
which the City of 4¢rar was the Capital,” &८, What more specific mention
could he want ?

The route taken hy the Chingiz Khan in marching from his yé#rat in the
direction of Kara-Kuram, and from which he is said to have set out in the
eleventh month of 615 H. [about the middle of February, 1219 A.D.], was by
way of the river of Ardish [८31] with the object of making those parts his
i-/a or summer quarters. When he reached the boundary of the territory of
Kaialik or Kaialigh [which, in Ravenstein’s map in the ^" Mongols Proper,” is
inserted about two degrees south of Lake Balkagh, but is too far N. of Khiiljah
by several degrees. Sairam, too, which lies S. of the Ulugh-Tagh and E. of
Aksii, is not near the Balkash, as there shown. From the route mentioned
by Goez, and the context of the account of the march of the Mughals, which
I shall now refer to, Kaialik was S. of the Ulugh Tagh and between
Turfan and Aksij, Arsalan Khan, the Karligh, the princifal [sie] of
the Amirs thereof—thus showing that there were several—came to do him
homage, got an appanage assigned him, and joined the Mughal army with his
followers. The Yiddi-Kit of the I-ghiirs also came from Bish-Baligh, and,
likewise, Tukia-Tigin [farther on, the name of the chief of Almiligh is said
to be Saghnak Tigin] and his followers or tribe [J+] from Almaligh [near
about Khiiljah, but on the left or S. bank of the river I-lih]. [प had also
been detached, before his father set out, it is said, by some, and, by the way,
by others, against the forces [ <*'] of the Kirkiz, who had manifested con-
tumacy, and shown delay and unwillingness [in furnishing a contingent pro-
bably], with directions to p: nish that tribe and seize their territory. Another
version is that it was not the Kirkiz who were to blame, but a tribe dwelling
along with them, and that the former did not commit themselves. पोतं set out ;
and, as the river of Kirkiz [the Kam-Kamjiit, on the opposite side of which
they dwelt] chanced, at the time, to be frozen over, he crossed it with his army
on the ice, and came upon them unawares in the wild country [4~..—a wild un-
cultivated tract, overgrown with reeds and the like] in which they dwelt. A good

9.

५7० - THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
in a short time, they took Utrar* and put both small and

number were slain by the Mughals, and Uradsit [~,~',,'], their chief—Unris
Inial—bent his neck to the yoke. After this Jiji returned and joined his
father.

2 It seems strange to me that the route taken by the Chingiz Khan and his
host on the way to Utrar, after what has just been stated respecting Bish-
Baligh and Kaialik, as related in the histories of the Mughals, is not clearly
understood. It was much the same line of route—and, doubtless, that in
general use by travellers, and 4drwans of merchants—as shown in Col.
Walker’s map, to Kara-Kol or Almatii, skirting the northern slopes of the
Ulugh or Ur-Tagh range, that he was pursuing, after detaching Jiji to the south-
ward in pursuit of Tik-Tughan, the Makrit, on which occasion, he [रौ], when
returning to re-join his father, was fallen in with by the Khwarazm Shah, near
the rivers Kamaj and Kabal, and compelled to fight against his will. It must
be sufficiently plain, to any one who will consult the map in question, that the
great river Irtish is not referred to. Ardigh, under the name of ^^ Artush,”
the ‘‘Artush Pass,” and ‘‘ Artush, which was the principal town of that
region,” at ‘‘the foot of the Kakshal mountains,” is mentioned by SHAW in
his work, ‘‘ //ighk Tartary,” and refers to the same tract of country, which, in
former times, extended much farther every way, as I have here pointed out.
The Ardish Pass is about seven or eight days’ journey, according to the author
just quoted, from ‘‘ the lains of Issik-kiil:’ [Issigh-Kol], only the ‘‘ plains”
there are mostly hills.

After this, the Chingiz Khan continued his westerly course from the vicinity
of the Issigh-Kol, by the present Almatii, in all probability—and, undoubtedly,
it was an ancient route—through the territory of Taraz or Banki, as it is also
called, along the skirts of what is at present known as the Kara-Tagh ; and,
from the route he subsequently took to Bukhara, when he detached his two
sons to invest Utrar, he must have passed the Sirr or Sihiin, a considerable
distance W. of Utrar, at the Jilik, or Ak-Masjid ferry possibly. Strange to
say, however, not a single author mentions his passage of that river. Having
crossed, he took the direct route to Bukhara. He had, by the way, previously
detached—by the Sairam or Ardish route southwards, in all probability—an
army, which wasmarching southwards against Tashkand and Khujand, while
फो was marching through Farghanah to join him before Bukhara or Samr-
kand. With ‘‘ Yengigent,” Jiji had no more to do than I had, unless he
flew along with his troops to it. Where are Saknak, Uzkand and Ardish in
Kashghar? where Yangi-kant ‘on the Jaxartes, at two days’ journey from
its outlet into the sea of Aral”? [‘‘ Mongols Proper,” pp. 76-7]. Why only
about nine degrees of Lcng., and four of Lat. distant from each other!

The Chingiz Khan reached the frontier of the Utrar territory, not the city and
fortress of that name, for he was never at Utrir himself, towards the end of
autumn, 616 H. [in September, 1219, A.D.]. Finding that the Sultan of
Khwarazm had dispersed his forces, and sent them to guard the great cities
and fortresses, instead of concentrating them, and that there was no army left
in the field to oppose him, he detached his sons Chaghatae and Uktie, the
Yiddi-Kit of the I-ghiirs, and other vassals, with several fomdns of troops, to
invest Utrar, and, with his son Tuli, and the main army, moved towards
Bukhara. Utrar, the chief place, and seat of government, which contained
§0,000 troops—Alfi has 15,000, a more likely number, but some copies have
5000 only—was defended with great gallantry for five months, until the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 97!

great— young and old—to the sword, and left not a soul
alive: they martyred the whole of them.

defenders were reduced to great straits, at which time the Khas Hajib, Kara-
chah, who had been sent thither with 10,000 more troops to support the Ghi-
ir Khan, was for capitulating to the enemy, but the Gha-ir Khan, who was
well aware that he could expect no mercy from the Mughals, scouted the very
idea of surrender, and being guilty of such base ingratitude to his sovereign.
Karichah, ltowever, entered 17६७ secret understanding with the Mughals [how
history has repeated itself within the past year or two! J, and, one night, left
the place with his contingent, by the Sifi-Khanah gate, and submitted to the
enemy, who, without delay, rushed in by that same gate, and captured the
city. As soon as moming arrived, Karachah, and his followers, after being
reproached and reviled for their ingratitude to their sovereign, were all put to
the sword, and the inhabitants of the place were removed outside into the
plain and butchered—‘‘ the lives of the inhabitants were sfared,’* says Mr. H.
प्र. Howorth in his ^" Mongols Proper.” The Gha-fr Khan threw himself into
the citadel, with 20,000 men—some say 8000, and some, 6000—all resolved to
fight to the last, and held out for another month, during which they made
several sallies, and slew a vast number of the Mughalarmy. At last, the Gha-ir
Khan was left with but two of his followers; and no shelter remained to them
bat the flat roof of his dwelling. These two soldiers fell at his side, and then the
Ghi-ir Khan, whom the Mughals were expressly commanded to capture alive
if possible, was made prisoner, and on the neck of Anial Juk they placed a
yoke—a play on the word Juk, which signifies a yoke for oxen, a collar. The
citadel of Utrar was levelled with the dust, and of the few people of the
place, and master artificers, who had escaped the massacre, some were impri-
soned, and some were driven along with the army to exercise their trades in the
Mughal camp, together with the Gha-ir Khan in chains. As the Chingiz
Khan was then before Samrkand, his sons set out to join him there, and to the
Ghi-ir Khan the cup of death was administered at Kiwak Sarde [oslo],
asarae near Samrkand. This place is the Gheucserai of Petis de la Croix.

I must now endeavour to give a short account of the different operations of
the Mughal hordes, in order to bring up events to the siege of Samrkand.

I have already mentioned in my previous notes, 4 page 268, and 2 page 964,
how Juji fell in with the Khwarazmi army in the northern part of the present
Kashghar territory, and, after a severe handling, his marching away, leaving
his camp fires burning, so as to avoid pursuit. He subsequently, by command
of his father, marched towards Jand, and, when he arrived near Saknak on the
way thither, he despatched the Haji, Hasan, who was a native of that place,
and then with his army, as an envoy, to endeavour to induce the inhabitants
tosubmit. The populace, however, put him to death for advising them to
submit to infidels and Mughals, and Jiji, filled with rage at the treatment of
his emissary, attacked the place, and, in two days, captured it. The inhabi-
tants were massacred and the place ruined [this is a mode of treating them
“with tenderness,” certainly, after the Muskov fashion. ‘‘ Mongols /-roper,”
page 76], and.a son of the Haji, Hasan, who was dwelling there, was made
its governor—the governor of adesolated place! [तौ then advanced to Yiz-
kand, also written Uzkand, and, to quote the expressive words of the History
in verse which I have elsewhere referred to: ‘‘In one night he took it, and
in one day demolished it.” After that he marched to Ashnas [I think this is
an error, although contained in so many works, for the Arab Ush-Shish—the

3Q2

~

972 TNE TABA’AT-I-NASIRI.

An astonishing relation [is here given] which was heard
by the author from one of the merchants whom they were

ancient name of Tashkand, but, if not, it is now unknown and its site also.
[प] was sent against it, and no mention is made of it after. Abi-l-Ghazi
Bahadur calls it Astagh], ‘‘a city full of vagabonds and rascals,” and, as
they showed hostility, they were speedily annihilated. No particulars are
given.

When the news reached Kutluk—also written Kutlugh — Khan, the Hakim
of Jand, he became fearful, evacuated the city, and fled by way of the steppe
in order to reach Khwarazm. Jiji on this despatched thither, as his agent,
Jai-Timiir—but who he was is not mentioned [see note page 933], save that he
had been long in the Chingiz Khan’s service—to advise the inhabitants to
submit. There was no leader or authority with sufficient power there, and the
populace raised a tumult and sought to take the agent’s life, but he managed to
escape by stratagem. On being made aware of the state of affairs, Jiji pushed
on, and came in sight of Jand; and the people had merely time to close the
gates and mount the walls, but they showed no other opposition. The
Mughals placed scaling ladders, mounted the walls, and the city was theirs.
As no active opposition had been shown, the people, with the exception of a
few evil doers, who had spoken fiercely to Jai-Timir, escaped from the
Mughal talons ; but they were all thrust out into the open country, and their
dwellings were abandoned to be sacked for a period of two weeks, and the
walls and defences were levelled with the dust. The Khwajah, ’Ali, who was
one of the great men of Bukhara, was located there in charge of the city. A
Mughal Amir likewise having been detached with one /omdn [10,000 men],
the city or town of Marjin [ e,4] was taken possession of, and an intendant
was left there. After this Jiiji set out to join the camp of his father.

The Ni-yins, Alak, also written Alak, Saktir, and Bikde, according to their
orders proceeded towards Khujand and Fandkat, or Banakat—afterwards known
as Shah-Rikhiyah —and, on reaching the latter place, the governor there, I-yal-
taki or I-yal-tagii by name, shut himself up in the citadel with a body of Kan-
kulis, and defended it vigorously for three days. On the fourth they called for
quarter, and came out of the city, and ‘‘were overwhelmed in the wave of
blood.” Destruction befell the people of Fanakat. Whether stranger or
friend, not one remained, and but few escaped with their lives, with the
exception of the young men of Tajzik race who were incorporated with the
enemy’s forces, and compelled to serve against their own people = Allak then
turned his face towards Khujand, the governor of which was Timiir Malik, “to
whom Rustam, were he alive, would have acted as groom, and Sam, were he
living in his day, would, on his own body, have inscribed his name.” This
‘Timir Malik had constructed a lofty fortress at the point, near the city, where
the river separates into two branches [at the junction, probably, of the tributary
of the Sibiin which joins that river from the South just below the city], and,
with 1000 men, took post therein, determined to hold out as long as he had
the power and means of doing so. The Mughal forces enclosed the city and
fortress as in a ring, but, as the missiles from their catapults took no effect upon
the fortress, the young men of the city [which, from this remark, must have
fallen, although no further mention is made of it] were collected in crowds;
and assistance was also brought from other places, near by, which had been
subdued, until 50,000 men were assembled together to help the investing force
consisting of 20,000 Mughals. The former were divided into gangs of tens

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 973

wont to style Khwajah Ahmad, the Wakhshi, a man of
veracity, who related after this manner : “It is narrated by

and hundreds, and one Mughal was placed over every ten Tajziks, and, from
the hills three /arsangs distant, they were compelled tu convey stones on foot
to the river side [in order to construct a causeway apparently, although this is
not specified], and the Mughal horsemen cast them into the river. Timi
Malik, who was fertile in expedients, had caused twelve vessels to be con-
structed, which were covered with felts plastered over with a mixture of fresh
clay and vinegar, in such wise that arrows and fire [such things as ‘*stink-
pots” in the accounts of this affair are purely ideal: a composition of naptha
is here referrei to] took no effect upon them, but windows [lit. but loop or
port-holes are meant] were left, so that arrows and other missiles could be
discharged from them against the Mughals. Every day, at daylight, Timir
Malik used to despatch six of these vessels on either side, and keep up a
desperate defence ; but, when matters became serious, and he found his efforts
unavailing, seventy boats which had been got ready to provide means of escape
he, one night, loaded with his effects, placed his family therein, embarked
with his warriors, and like lightning launched into the river. The Mughal
forces, becoming aware of it, set out along both banks to oppose his progress ;
and, in every place where they could offer most opposition, he would draw near
with his own vessel, and with his arrows, which like the arrow of destiny never
missed their mark, would drive the Mughals off, and would push on again with
his vessel, On reaching Fanakat, he found the Mughals had drawn a chain
across the river, thinking to stop the little fleet, but, with one blow of an axe,
Timir Malik made the chain two, and pushed on again. I find no mention,
in any author, of a ‘‘ bridge of boats built at Jend,” because Timir Malik
did not proceed to Jand at all, but, some distance below Fandkat, where the
mountains approach the river, he landed on the western bank, entered the
steppe, and made for the city of Khwarazm, because Juji Khan, on being
informed of his heroic conduct, had made preparations to bar his progress
farther down the river, which he would have been enabled to do from his posi-
tion in the vicinity of Tashkand or Ush-Shash. The Mughals however fol-
lowed in his track, and when they drew near he would face about and withstand
them until his family and effects made some progress in advance, and then he
would follow. After some days, when most of Timiir Malik’s men had fallen,
the baggage was captured, and, with a few men remaining, he pushed on with
rapidity, giving the Mughals no opportunity of taking him, and keeping them
at bay. At last his few remaining followers were killed, and Timir Malik was
left alone—some say his family at this time had attained a distance which
placed them out of danger—and with no means of defence left but three
arrows, one of which was broken and its head gone. Three Mughals were
still in pursuit of nim, so he drew the broken and headless arrow—for he did
not wish to have to use the others—and sent it through the eye of the foremost
pursuer, and blinded him. He then said to the other two: ‘‘ Two arrows
still remain according to your number, and so it is advisable that ye return
from whence ye came.” They did retire; and the Iron Malik—Timir signifies
iron—proceeded on his way without further molestation to Khwarazm. There
he again prepared for war, and with a small force surprised and captured the
town of Kat [ oS ] on the Jihiin, in the district of Hazir-asp, and from
thence he proceeded to join Sultan Muhammad, not considering it advisable to
remain in Khwarazm. He pushed on until he came up with him, and told

974 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

reliable persons that the Chingiz Khan, after that he had
possessed himself of Tamghaj, and had brought it under
his sway, and, for a period of four years, had caused great
sedition and shedding of blood, saw once night, in a dream,
that he was binding a turban of immense length about his
head, so much so, that, from the vast length of the turban,
and the labour of binding it, he began to grow fatigued
after, in his interminable task, he had become like unto a
great corn stack. When he awoke from his sleep, he was
relating his dream to every one of his confidants, and the
men of wisdom who were about him, but not one among
them could interpret it in a manner to satisfy his mind,
until one of his confidants said: ‘The turban is part of
the costume of the merchants who are in the habit of
coming into this part from different directions of the west,
and a party of them has arrived from ’Arabia. It is neces-
sary to summon them in order that the interpretation may
be obtained from these persons.’ In accordance with that
advice, they were called in order to interpret it.

“Among the merchants they found a few persons
from the west, ’Arabian Musalmans, turban-wearers, and

him all he had experienced at the hands of the Mughals, and that they were
like unto a flood. This made the Sultan still more apprehensive and per-
plexed, and, though he was himself young his fortune was grown old—a play
upon words in the original which is lost in translation.

The Nii-yan Alak, after having obtained possession of Khujand, the next
day, set out to rejoin the great army, and reached the camp of the Chingiz
Khan after the capture of Samrkand.

A few words more may not be out of place respecting Timiir Malik. He
subsequently retired—disgnised as a Darwegh, some say—into ’Irak-i-’Ajam,
proceeded to Shiraz and Jiraft, and, finally, into Sham, until the Mugbal
troubles had somewhat subsided. He remained there some years; and in the
time of Batti Khan, son of [णां Khan, he, impelled by a desire of revisiting
his native Jand once more, and by that monarch’s leave, reached Khujand,
where he found that his only remaiuing son had gained favour with the Mughal
ruler, and had been put in possesion of some of his father’s property. He
was recognized by an old slave, and proposed to proceed to the court of
ति ८८ Khan, whose name was celebrated for magnanimity, but, on the way,
he fell in with one of the Mughal royal family, Kadka-in U ghlin, who pat
him in chains, for the old Turk Malik’s haughty bearing displeased him. Soon
after, the very Mughal, into whose eye he had lodged the headless arrow,
happened to come in, and began to question him as to his battles, in 0
insolent tone which provoked Timir Malik to answer him in such a manner
as awakened the wrath of the Mughal savage against his former adversary,
and he discharged an arrow, in return for his arrow,,as he exclaimed, right
through the body of Timir Malik, who fell dead on the spot.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 975

they were sent for; and to the person who was the
chief, and the most: intelligent among the party, the
Chingiz Khan related his dream. The Z@zi [’Arabic]-
speaking merchant said: ‘The turban is the crown and
diadem of the ’Arab, for head dresses ° of that description
are the tiaras of the Arab; and the Prophet of the Musal-
mans—Muhammad, the chosen one—the blessing of God
be upon him !—was a turban-wearer, and the Khalifahs of
Islam are turban-wearers. The interpretation is this, that
the kingdoms of Islam will come into thy possession, and
the countries in which the Muhammadan faith prevails thou
wilt reduce under thy sway.’ This signification chimed
in with the opinion of the Chingiz Khan; and, for this
reason, his design of appropriating the territory of Islam
was resolved upon

We return to the subject of [this] history.

After capturing Utrar* and martyring its inhabitants,

? The word used is lee the plural of ale which more particularly refers
to the large turbans of Muhammadan ecclesiastics.

I have several times mentioned the variation of idiom in different copies of
the text, and here it varies considerably : in fact, there is greater difference, in
this respect, in this Section than in any of the preceding ones.

+ [ doubt very much an ’Arab’s saying so, even if he thought it; and, if
the merchant told the Mughal this, and it made him determine upon invading
Islim, the Musalmans had not very great reason to be grateful to the ’Arab
interpreter.

* This is a great mistake. The Chingiz Khan, as shown in the previous
notes °, page 273, and >, page 970, para. four, had nothing to do with Utrar
personally. He reached the frontier of that territory towards the close of
autumn 616 H. [September, 1219 A.D.]. He left his two sons, Uktae and
Chaghatie, with a great army to invest Utrar, as already stated, and, detach-
ing another and smaller force, under the Ni-yins, Alak, Sakti, and एत्र,
to Fanakat and Khujand, with the bulk of his mighty host, and accompanied
by his son Tiili, marched towards Bukhara.

The name of this celebrated city is said to signify, ‘‘in the language of the
Mughan—Fire-worshippers—an assembling place, or rendezvous of science,
and this word, in the dialect of the idol-worshipping I-ghiirs and Khiti-is, is
nearly similar, for their places of worship, which are places of idols, they
term Bukhar.”’

On the way thither, the Mughuls reached Zarnik [there is no doubt
Tespecting its name], and the inhabitants, having issued forth to receive them
with due ceremony, were granted security for life and goods. The Chingiz
Khin changed the name of the place to Kutliigh Baligh, that is, the
Auspicious or Fortunate City, but he took away all the young men of the place
to incorporate with his army. But Tashkand did not receive the name of

^" Kutluk balig,” as in the recently published work so often referred to. The
Habfb.us-Siyar says that the people first shut the gates, but, afterwards, were

976 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

they [the Mughals] marched, from thence, towards Bukh
ara ; and, on the first of the month of Zi-Hijjah, 616 प्र

induced to open them and submit, while another statement is, that the city was
surprised, However this may be, its walls were razed to the ground, to make
it ‘the Fortunate City” perhaps. The Bahadur, Ta-fr, whose name will
frequently appear in the text, farther on, was sent, in advance, to summon
Nir [see page 118]. The place submitted, it and its dependencies were
bestowed as an appanage upon the Bahadur, Sahiidah or Swidie, as he is
also called, the inhabitants paid a year’s tribute in advance, and received
security for life and property, and were not further molested.

At the end of the year 616 H. [February, 1220 A.n.—not the 19th of June,
1219 A.D., as we are told in ^^ Mongols Proper,’ for the year, 617 H., began
on the 7th March, 1220], the Mughal hosts appeared before Bukbara, and
the felt tent of the Chingiz Khan was pitched facing the citadel. There was
no ‘‘several days’ siege” whatever. When night set in, the Amirs commanding
the troops there, Kiwak Khan, son of Hamid-i-Bir [an elder brother of the
Hajib, Burak, the Kara-Khita-i, who subsequently usurped the sovereignty `
of Kirman, subordinate to the Mughals, after that ingrate had compassed the
murder of Ghiyas-ud-Din, the Sultan’s son, and ruler of that territory. See
note 9, page 283], Kiwak Khan, ऽ पण] Khan, Bughrae Khan, and Kashli [by
some Kaghli, which is merely another form of the title] Khan, with 20,000
—but some writers of Mughal proclivities make the number 30,000, in
the same manner as they always exaggerate the numbers of the Musalmans
—came out, by one of the gates, in- order to make a night attack upon the
invaders, but, the enemy having got word of it, they were encountered and
defeated by the Mughal advance. The great men of Bukhara, consisting of
ecclesiastics, doctors of the law, and distinguished persons, issued forth from the
city next day [the roth of Zi-Hijjah], at dawn, and strove, by the manifes-
tation of submission and eloquent appeals, to make terms whereby the in-
habitants might be saved from the violent blast of the invader’s wrath. The
Chingiz Khan entered the city in order to view it ; and, when he reached the
Masjid-i-Jami’, or Friday’s Masjid, beheld a great and lofty building, towards
which he urged forward his horse, and rode into it, with his son, even up to
the most sacred place within it—the Saffah-i-Maksitirah : the place where the
Imam stands when officiating—and inquired : ‘‘Is this the Sultan’s palace?”
They replied : ‘‘ This is the house of God.” He then dismounted from his
horse, certainly not out of respect, mounted two or three steps of the pulpit,
and sat down [Alfi says, Tili ascended to the pulpit] and [according to
Sharaf-ud-Din, ’Ali,] commanded his troops, saying: ‘‘ There is no forage in
the plain by means of which they [the people] may satiate the horses, [see ye
to it]. The Fanakati, Fasih-i, Alfi, and others, however, relate more
circumstantially, that he said to those present : ^^ The plain for open country
outside] is destitute of grass : it behoveth that ye fill the bellies of my horses,”
and, on this, they opened the granaries [of the city], and brought forth grain.
The Mughals then drew their horses into the Masjid, and made the chests, in
which the sections of the Kur’an—which is generally in thirty sections of six-
teen pages each—and other religious books were kept, troughs for their horses
to feed out of, while the books were trodden under foot ; and they handed the
head-stalls of their horses to the ’Ulami to hold, while they themselves betook
themselves to the cup [neither the wine, nor the ‘‘loving cup,” but the
fermented mares’ milk cup—4sumiz] and began to sing their Mughali songs.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 977

pitched their camp before the gate of that city. Kashli
Khan, the Amir-i-Akhur of Sultan Muhammad, Khwa-

Most European authors who relate this anecdote take it from Sharaf-ud-Din
*Ali’s work, but neither that work, nor any other that I have met with, will bear
translating ^" Zhe hay is cut, give your horses fodder,” as quoted by Mr. त. पत.
Howorth from VAMBERY’S ‘‘ Bokharah,” page 28, and which he or his
authority mistakes for ‘‘a cynical invitation to plunder.” The original words
in Sharaf-ud-Din, are ‘‘dar sahra ’alaf nist kth aspan ra ser sdsand +
(Erdmann’s rendering of the same sentence is perfectly correct] and ‘‘the floor
strewn with wine skins” and “the singing women [the word is ७८०] intro-
duced ”’ are likewise not to be found in his work : the words are: ‘‘ ba ayaégh
déshtan mashohiul shudand, ba ahang-t-Mughuli bar kashidand +" there is not
a word about women.

From the Jami’ Masjid mounting again, the Chingiz Khan rode to the
Musgalla-e-’Id—the place of Prayer, where the prayers appointed for Festivals
are said—and, mounting the pulpit, having first caused the people to be assem-
bled, harangued them about the killing of his envoys, and, telling them that he
had been sent against them as the instrument of the Divine wrath, on account
of their sovereign’s and their own misdeeds—he too was a ‘‘divine figure”
also *‘from the north,” and, after holding forth in a similar blasphemous
strain, which address was interpreted from the Mughal language into Persian
by an interpreter who stood by his side, he continued : ^^ Such property as is
visible in this city need not be referred to—he had an eye to plunder notwith-
standing his divine mission—but all that is concealed it behoveth ye to give up.”
Much wealth was given up in consequence. As commands had been already
issued that the adherents of the Khwarazmi Sultan should be expelled the city,
and none should be sheltered or concealed therein, on finding that several of
them had been sheltered by the people of Bukhara, he—merely desiring an
excuse—gave orders for a general massacre of the inhabitants, and to set fire to
the city, which was mostly built of wood ; and, in the space of one day, the
whole, with the exception of the great Masjid, and a few brick buildings, was
consumed, in such wise that the city became the haunt of wild beasts. The
suburbs were then given to the flames, and the ditch of the citadel was filled
up with whatever could be obtained—dead bodies of men and beasts, stones,
timber, rubbish, and the like—and, in a few days, the Mughals captured it.
Its governor, Kiwak Khan, with all found within the place, were put to
the sword—more than 30,000 in all—including grandees and great men, the
servants of the Sultin, who were treated in the most contemptuous manner,
and their females and children were carried away into slavery, but babes were
not spitted on lances as in these days of civilization and Christianity. After
this the citadel was levelled with the ground, and not a vestige of gate, wall,
or rampart, of either city or citadel remained. Atwak Mazar, or the Tomb of
Kiwak, lies a few miles to the N.E. of the present city.

The young men of Bukhara, who had been spared for another purpose,
were driven off with the troops towards Samrkand and Dabiisah [also called
Dabiis and Dabisf. It was a fortified town about midway between Bukhara
and Samrkand], and from Bukhara the Chingiz Khan turned his face towards
Samrkand.

Having heard accounts of the great strength of Samrkand, which had
lately been added to, the Chingiz Khan had been led to despatch bodies of
troops under Jaji and the Ni-yan, Alak, to subdue other places in Turkistan

978 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

razm Shah, was there, on the part of that monarch, with a
force of 12,000 horse; and the Mughals invested the city.
On the day of the festival of the £urdan [1oth of Zi-Hijjah
—15th February, 1220] of that same year, they took the
city and fortress of Bukhara, and expelled the whole of the
inhabitants—gentle and simple, the learned and the noble,
both male and female—and martyred them, and burnt and
destroyed the whole of the city, and all the libraries of
books; and a few persons [only] were made captive.
They then turned their faces towards Samrkand. The
leader of the van of the Chingiz Khan’s army, which issued
from the wilds, and captured Utrar, and advanced to the

before he advanced into Mawara-un-Nahr, in order to clear his rear of enemies,
and to have the whole of his forces at his disposal before he attacked Samr-
kand. The resistance at Utrar however disappointed him with regard to the
troops investing that place, and the movements of the others have been already
narrated. Having made a vast levy of the country people, as stated above, to
aid his troops, he left small detachments behind to invest Sar-i-Piil and Dabiisah,
while he hastened forward with his great host, which, numerous as ants or
locusts, suddenly appeared before Samrkand, at the end of Zi-Hijjah, 616 H.
(the latter part of February, 1220, A.D.], and the tent of the Chingiz Khan was
pitched in sight of the place, at Kiwak-Sarae. The next day—some say the
third day—he reconnoitred the ramparts, bastions, ditch, gateways, and other
defences; and, on the second day, as soon as morning dawned, I-yal-Taz
Khan—the Shams Khan of Alfi—Sarsigh Khan, Taghae Khan, Ulak Khan,
and several other leaders, with the troops within the citadel and city, with
great intrepidity and boldness poured out of the place, and attacked the
Mughals in their quarters. The number, in all, is said to have been 110,000,
` namely 60,000 Turks, and 50,000 Tajziks of the country, and twenty elephants.
On that day, the Khwarazinis displayed immense valour, and a great number
were killed on either side, but chiefly, oh the part of the Mughals, who also lost
a great number of prisoners who were carried off triumphantly into the city.
This statement does not agree with what our author states above as to the
ambuscade, and the number of the troops has been just doubled.

Next day the Chingiz Khan mounted, and, in person, directed the operations,
completely invested the place, prevented the troops within from making a sally,
had the catapults placed in position, and began tu batter the walls, and pour in
volleys of stones and arrows. The walls were however defended with vigour
until the day closed, but the defenders were disheartened ; and, to make matters
worse, there was treason within. One party of the inhabitants—the selfish part
—‘‘the peace at any price party ’””—were for going out and seeking quarter
from the Mughal, while the other party was for defending the place to the
utmost. This very division of opinion—without reckoning the traitors — caused
great mischief: the leaders of the troops were discouraged, and at a loss what
to do, and did not fight as they otherwise would have done, for the place was
strong enough to have held out a considerable time. On the fifth day—but
from our author’s statement above it must have been the ninth—early in the
morning, while fighting was going on, the Kagf of the city, the Shaikh-ul-Islam,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 979

gate of Bukhara and took it likewise, was a Turk whose name
was Tamur-chi, the Jazbi, a man of great energy; and, in
the Mughal dialect, 7a2d7 signifies a Hajib [Chamberlain].
On first reaching the gate of Samrkand, the Mughal
forces laid an ambuscade; and the troops in Samrkand,
and the people, moved out to give battle. On the ambus-
cade being drawn, defeat befell the troops of Islam and the
people of Samrkand, and nearly 50,000 Musalmans became
martyrs. Subsequently to that, for a period of ten days or
a little over, the Mughals took up a position round about
Samrkand. Within the walls of that city, on the part of
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, was a force of 60,000

and a body of other ecclesiastics [old officials of Usman, the Afrasiyabi, and,
doubtless, true to the hostile Khalifah, who incited the infidels], unexpectedly
went out, and presented themselves before the Chingiz Khan, who received ,
them with much encouragement and favour. Without any security, and with
the mere promise of safety for themselves and dependents—these barbarians
rarely, if ever, kept their word—they were allowed to return; and, at the time of
prayer, when the rest of the people were off their guard, these traitors opened
the gate known as the Gate [some say Gates] of the Namaz-gah—Alfi says
~—the ’Id-gah—and admitted the Mughals within the walls! During that day
and night the infidels completely destroyed the walls and defences of the city,
and drove out into the open plain the inhabitants, both males and females,
with the exception of the dependents of the Kazi, the Shaikh-ul-Islim, and
other traitors, who are said to have amouted to 50,000 [5000 probably] persons,
and then, as was their wont, proceeded to sack the place, and all whom they
found within, with the exception of those mentioned, they slew. The Mughals
continued within the city until the night of the next day, when they were with-
drawn.

The garrison in the citadel was now completely hemmed in, and had no
means of escape, but one resolute leader, Kara Alb, the Arsalan Khan, with
1000 men, charged through the Mughal force, cut his way out, and succeeded
in joining the Sultan, to whom he conveyed the dismal news. Next day the
Mughals attacked the citadel, and, having destroyed the defences, during the
time of the two prayers, which are wont to be said every Friday about mid-day,
succeeded in gaining possession of one of the gateways, and poured in. The
Kanghuli or Kankuli Turks, the chief of whom was Bar-Sipis [in one A/S.
Bar-Samis, and, in Alfi, Shams] Khan, Taghae Khan, Sarligh [Sarsigh ?]
Khan, U-lak Khan, the U-lagh Khan of the Jahan-Kushie, together with about
twenty other Amirs and Sardars of Sultan Muhammad, with the whole of his
troops that were therein, were butchered, to the number of 30,000 men, which
isa small number in comparison with the 110,000 men said to have been the
number stationed at Samrkand. Of the remaining people of the city, 33,000
artificers, mechanics, and the like, were selected and divided among the sons
and kinsmen of the Chingiz Khan ; and the residue of the unharmed inhabi-
tants were ransomed and spared for the sum of 200,000 dinars. These events
took place in the beginning of the summer of 617 H. [April 4, A.D. 1220}. A
Mughal Shabnah was left at Samrkand, and a native of the place, a Musalman
official, was placed in charge of the city under him.

980 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

horse, consisting of Turks, Ghiiris, Tajziks, Khalj, and
Karlughs, and all the Maliks of (गपा, such as Khar-zor
Maliki [Malik ?], and Zangi-i-Khar-Jam [Cham ?].° and
other Maliks of Ghir, were there. On the day of ’Ashira,
the roth of the month of Muharram, 617 H., the Mughals
took Samrkand, and burnt that city and destroyed it, and
made captives of some [of the inhabitants, and put the rest
to the sword]. Bodies of troops were nominated to various
parts of Mawara-un-Nahr, Farghanah, and Bilasa-ghiin,
and destroyed all the cities,’ and martyred all their inhabi-
tants. Mughal armies were also despatched to take
possession of different parts of the dominions [of the
Khwarazmi Sultan], and forces were sent from Upper
Turkistan to pursue Kashli*® Khan, the Tatar, who was 2
king, and the son of a king, of the Tatar tribes, who had
seized and brought [away] the Gir Khan of Kara-Khita ;
and they captured him [ Kashlii Khan] on the boundaries of
Jab and Kikrab’ which is Ghuzzistan, and the hill tracts of
Samrkand ; and they slew him.’

6 The leader referred to at page 926—probably Khar-Cham—Ass-energy—
This, as well as Khar-Zor—Ass-power or force—is doubtless a nick-name.

As I have noticed elsewhere, several of the Ghiri Maliks have such like
names, in which Khar, Ass, occurs, such as Khar-post—Ass-skinned, Khar-
nak[nag ?]—Ass-palate or lipped, and the like. Maliki is contained in all
the copies of the text, Lut Malik must be the more correct.

7 The most modern copies of the text collated have, ‘‘as far as the gate of
Bilasa-ghiin.”’

It is not to be wondered at that this celebrated city is not mentioned
subsequently, considering it was destroyed. The name Ghi-Baligh must
have been applied to it by the Mughals in times prior to this period.

8 Troops had been despatched against Koshlik before entering the
dominions of the Sultan of Khwarazm; and most of the strong places, in
Mawara-un-Nahr and Western Turkistan, had been captured or taken posses-
sion of before the investment of Samrkand was undertaken.

9 In some few copies the first word is wl» apparently—Auédad or hadad, but
le —Jab—seems to be the correct name. These names are not to be found
on modern maps. The following note further indicates their position. See
also note °, page 374.

1 I have already, in my previous notes to the reign of Sultan Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shah, given some details respecting Kojlak, Koghluk, Koghlik,
Kasbli, or Kasbli, as he is variously styled by different authors, the last four
forms of writing being mere variations of the same name, his intrigues with
the Sultan, and his seizure of his father-in-law and benefactor, the Gir Khan,
but, to make this account clear and connective, I must go back a little to refer
to the chief of the Makrits and his proceedings.

The Chingiz Khan having returned, in 611 H., from the campaign against the
Altan Khan, and gone to his y#ra¢ or encamping ground on the river Kaliir-an

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 981

When the news of the taking of Samrkand, and of the

or Lukah, soon after found that the Makrits were again preparing for war.
There is considerable discrepancy with regard to these events, and some
oriental writers have, through the carelessness of copyists, apparently, turned
two events into oné, with respect to Kodii [9०5] and the sons of the late Bigi
Tikta, and his nephews, and Tiik-Tughan, the Makrit.

At the period in question, Kodi and his nephews were residing in the
Naeman country, and were regaining strength, which they were using in
support of Koshliik, the Naeman sovereign, who, at this time, had seized the
last of the Gir Khians, and his dominions. The Makrits had likewise incited
other tribes of Mughals, who were quite ready to do so, to throw off the yoke
of the Chingiz Khan, under which they had fallen. Among the tribes in-
stigated to war by them were the Tiim-at or Tiim-ad Mughals [turned into
“Comat,’’ in the Kashghar Mission History, a different tribe from the
Burghiits or Burkits], who were dwelling in the tracts towards the south-
east from Kashghar--now part of the great sandy desert—towards the frontier
of Khita, about the Kok Nawar, incorrectly written Kokonor in our maps.

In the year 612 H., therefore, the Chingiz Khan despatched the Ni-yin,
Sahidah, or Swidie, the Uriangkiit Kiingkur-at, with a considerable army
against the Makrits, and he was provided with carts or waggons, specially
made and strengthened with iron, so that they might not easily break down,
as the Makrits had taken shelter in a very mountainous tract of country.
This tract was called Kum-Kunjak—[oes .3] which, through the careless
copying of some scribe, or an imperfect AZS., has been mistaken for Kibchak
[७] by many oriental authors with ridiculous results, and European writers
generally have followed them.

Sahiidah set out in the beginning of 612 H. [it commenced on the Ist May,
121§ A.D.], and was joined, on the way, by the Bahadur, Taghachar, with
another force [this leader, probably, is Giizidah’s Tutmar-i-Chibin, but Abi-l-
Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, calls him Toshajar]. The two leaders, after great
exertions, reached the whereabouts of the Makrits, brought them to action near
the banks of the river Jam—the Jam Muran [७ pe] but, in some Histories,
the letter + has a dot over it instead of under, which makes it Kham, while
in others again it is not pointed, and therefore stands for »—4—with which
no Turkish word begins [Chinese, and Europeans, however, vitiate 44, and
tum it into Arabic 4 as in Hanum for Khanum, 7204224, for Top-khanah,
Hatti-Humayun for Khatt-i-Humayiin, Hodjah for Khwajah, Aalji for
Khalji, Yan for Khin, Hamil for Khamil, and the like]. Bentinck says the
Jam Muran rises in the mountains crossing the Gobi—the Altan, not Altyn
mountains—of which but little had been previously known, if the existence
of such a range has not been altogether ignored until the recent discoveries
by the Russians, and that the river runs S.S.W., and falls into the Kara-
Muran or Hoang-ho, on the borders of Tibbat. See the map to Col. Preje-
valsky’s explorations in the Geographical Magazine for May, 1878, which
confirm the existence of this range, which has been distinctly mentioned by
Oriental writers and old travellers, and which is clearly laid down, although
Not quite exactly, in the maps of the Jesuits. A Chinese envoy told Gerbillon
that he had crossed a river of Kok Nawar, ‘‘ called in the Mongol [Turki ?]
tongue Altan Kol, or Golden River,” which falls into the Lakes of Tsing-fa-
hay, and has abundance of gold mixed with its sands.

The Makrits stood their ground against the Mughals, and the consequence
was they were defeated with immense loss. Some say the tribe was almost

982 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

massacre and captivity of its inhabitants, and of the troops

destroyed, together with Kodii and all his nephews but one, a mere child, who
was taken to the presence of the Chingiz Khan, who ordered him ‘‘to be sent
to join his brothers and uncle,” notwithstanding Jiji Khan would have taken
charge of him, and have brought him up.

It has been asserted that the Makrits were entirely annihilated on this occa-
sion, but such is not correct, as I shall presently show, and Kodi, brother of
the late Bigi, (स, and Tuk-Tugbin, who is also called the brother of the
same chief, have been mistaken for one and the same person, of which there
is no probability, for Tik-Tughan, and the remnant of the Makrit tribe were
encountered by [णा Khan, in the northern part of the present territory of
Kashghar in 615 H., after the death of Koghlik, and when the Chingiz
Khan was on his way westward to invade the territory of Sultin Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shah, and when Jiji, against his will, sustained the attack of
the Sultan’s army in which his own was roughly handled. To demonstrate
this clearly, it is necessary to go back a little, and refer to what is said about
it elsewhere.

When Kosblik, the Naeman, left the presence of the Gir Khan, his father-
in-law, to call around him his dispersed Naemans, and proceeded towards
Kaialik, when he reached its confines and that of I-mil, Tik-Tughin, the
Amir of the Makrits, who had fled—from whence is not mentioned—on
hearing the rumour of the Chingiz Khan’s fury, joined him, together with
many of the Gir Khian’s chiefs. During the time that Koghliik exercised
dominion over the state of the Giir Khan, however, after the latter’s seizure
by him, Tak-Tughan, with the remainder of the tribe of Makrit, had
separated from Koghlik, and returned to Kum-Kunjak again.

The next information we obtain is, that the Chingiz Khan, having deter-
mined to invade the dominions of the Khwarazmi Sultan, when making his
preparations for the march, considered it advisable, before setting out, to leave
no enemies in his rear; and, as Koghltik, the Naeman, and Tuk-Tughan,
the Makrit, still remained, and their whereabouts was in the vicinity of his
route towards the west, he deemed it necessary to reduce them first, and so
the Nii-yin, Jabah [Yamah], was sent with a large army against Kosblik
and Jiijt Ughlan, the Chingiz Khan’s son, at the head of another army,
against the Makrits under Tik-Tughan.

It would seem, therefore, that Tik-Tughan, hearing of the movements of
the two Mughal armies, and finding Jiji was coming upon him, moved from
Kum-Kunjak, with the remains of the Makrit tribe, and endeavoured to reach
Kara-Kum [which, in some imperfectly or carelessly copied A/SS., has been
turned into Kara-Kuram], which was the daght or steppe inhabited by the
Kankuli Turks, and which tribe had been assigned, by the Sultan of
Khwirazm, to his mother, Turkin Khiatiin, as part of her appanage.

At page 267, it is stated that, in 615 H., the Sulfan had moved from Samr-
kand to Jand because a body of those remaining of the supporters of Kadr
Khan [Kadir Khan of &thers], respecting whom more will be found in the
account of Jiji Khan farther on, had broken out into revolt on the confines
of Jand, for the purpose of suppressing it, and, that, after he had annihilated
that faction, he returned towards Samrkand again. Some other writers,
however [See note ', page 262], say that this took place earlier, before the
total downfall of the last Gir Khan, and that, after quelling this revolt, the
Sultan heard that an army of the Gir Khan had appeared before Samrkand,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 983

of Islam which were there stationed, reached Sultan

and was preparing to march to its relief, when the Kara-Khitae army was
withdrawn to operate against Koshlik, but our author twice distinctly states
that this revolt, or its suppression, happened in 615 H., and immediately after
says that ‘‘the calamity of the infidels of Chin—i.e. the Mughals—arose.”

The Sultan being at Samrkand, whither he had returned from Jand, hearing
of the movements of Tuk-Tughan and the Mughals in the direction of Kara-
Kum, moved towards Jand to guard his own territory, and to seize or stop
Tuk-Tughan, if practicable, and marched beyond it as far as the frontier of
the Turks. In the meantime Tiik-Tughan and his people, marching westward
towards the Kankuli steppe, had been intercepted by Jiji Khan near the
great mountain range forming the northern boundary of the present Kashghar
State, as previously related.

I think I have here shown that Kodi, brother of the Bigi, Tiktad, the
Makrit, and Tik-Tughan, the Makrit, are different persons, and that the
Makrits were not wholly destroyed when defeated by Sahiidah.

The author of the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” on the authority of M. Wolff, states
at page 73, that the destruction of the ‘‘ Merkits” took place ‘‘near Lake
Kossagol, between the Selinga and the Upper Jennessei ” [sic], but I notice
that he had some doubts about it, and, at page 712, he places ‘‘the Merkits,”’
as ‘‘living probably in the valley of the Chu, and perhaps at Balasaghun,”
after stating that, according to Erdmann, the ‘‘Merkit chiefs” were ‘‘ met
and defeated on the banks of the river Jem (not the Kem or Yenissei [szc],
as Wolff seems to read it),” but without perceiving that, at page 73, he had
given, from the same writer, apparently, a much more correct version of the
affair, and had even named some of the places tolerably correctly, but under
vitiated orthography !

I must, as briefly as possible, give some account of Koghluk’s subsequent
acts, after his seizure of the Gir Khiin, his father-in-law, and benefactor, and
his own fate, which immediately preceded the irruption of the Mughal bar-
barians into the countries of Islam.

After the seizure of the last Kara-Khita-i ruler, his dominions east of
the Sihiin devolved apon Koghlik, but he did not thereby ‘‘ dccome himself
Gur Khan,” as we are informed in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper.” Had Koghlik
known how to have managed the Gir Khan, after he became his son-in-law,
he might have got up a formidable, and, perhaps, successful, combination
against the Mughal ruler, to whom also he was related on the mother’s side.
Kosbliik was an idol-worshipper—dxt-parast—a Buddhist, and his wife [or
one of his wives ?] was a follower of ’I-sia—Jesus Christ ; hence they were both
intolerant to the Musalmans, continually exhorting them to turn idolators—the
Rauzat-ug-Safa says, to embrace Christianity—and those who would not were
massacred. The Tarikh-i-Alfi, however, says that Koshliik, ‘‘for the sake
of an idol-worshipping damsel, became himself an idol-worshipper too,” but
without mentioning what faith he previously followed, which we must presume
was the Christian.

Koshlik, for a period of four years, from 610 to 614 H. [May, 1213, to
April, 1217, A.D.], continued to send forces against Kaghghar, and they used
to commit great ravages, and burn the crops, in such wise, that famine began
to show itself in that tract of country. The inhabitants could do no other
than give up the city of Kashghar and its defences to him, and the fort
surrendered. Kosghliik’s troops took up their quarters in the peoples’ houses,

984 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, who was then [encamped

leaving them to shift for themselves, and violence, wickedness, and sedition,
reigned supreme.

Petis de la Croix, who quotes ‘“‘ Mirconde,” that is to say, Mir Khawind,
the author of the Rauzat-us-Safa, makes the astonishing statement in his
°“ Genghizcan the Great,” that the Gir Khan used to reside at Kash ghar, which
was the capital of their Turkistan possessions, and sometimes called Urdi-
kand. That the Musalman religion prevailed there is, undoubtedly, correct—
and had prevailed for centuries, it may be added—and the Nestorians had
churches there, but that, ‘‘at this time the capital is Myarcan, which is the
same place as Caschgar was,’’ shows that De la Croix’s geography was a ८८
at fault. Ydarkand is just 100 miles S.E. of Kashghar. He moreover states,
quoting, apparently, the same work, that the people of Caschgar refused to
acknowledge any other sovereign than the Gir Khan’s son, and that ^. the
stege lasted long,” and ‘‘ the city was at last taken.”

In the last para. of the account of the Giir Khans, I have noticed what has
been said respecting the survivors of that family, but, although it is very
probable that the last Gir Khan, and the former ones too, may have had
descendants, they are not specified, nor is a son mentioned in any author that
I am aware of. The statement as to ‘‘Gushluk” having killed ‘‘ the sove-
reign” of ‘‘ Kashgar,” contained in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,’’ is without any
real authority, I fancy, and would be difficult to verify.

After obtaining possession of Kashghar, Koshlik moved towards Khutan,
which ’Abi-l-Fida and some others say was of the I-ghiirs, or ‘ I-ghiiria,”
lying in the 42° of Lat., while Kashghar is said to be in the 44°, but correctly,
according to the most recent observations, 39” 24’ 26, and 37° 6’ 58”, respec-
tively, which shows the correct direction of the I-ghiir country at the period in
question, and which extended much farther to the S. W. than shown in the map in
‘* Mongols Proper,” and as the events mentioned clearly show. Kogblik took
possession of Khutan, and acted towards its people in the same tyrannical
manner, as at Kashghar, to compel Musalmans to recant. He commanded
that all the learned men of the place should come out and hold a disputation
with him on the subject, and more than 3000 ’Ulama and men of learning
appeared. One of them was the Shaikh 'Ald-ud-Din, Muhammad, the
Khutani, and he got the best of the argument, by the Musalman account,
upon which Koshliik began to mock him, and the Shaikh, losing all patience,
cried out, ‘‘ Dust on thy mouth, O Kogbliik ! thou accursed enemy of the
faith!” For this the Shaikh was seized and nailed up before the gate of the
college he had founded. He lingered for several days, during which he con-
tinued to exhort the people to be staunch in the faith ; and, at length, he was
put to death, and thus attained the felicity of martyrdom. After this, Musal-
mans were forbidden to exercise their religion, and the call to prayer and
public worship were prohibited.

At that period, there was a person dwelling on the confines of Almaligh, of
great valour and intrepidity, and a champion—a pah/awan, but not ‘‘a herald
with red arrows ” [see ‘‘ Afongols Proper,” page 130], and his name was ष्म
[1531], and he also belonged to the Kankuli or Kanghuli tribe. He was
freebooter, and did nothing better than steal horses from all parts, and carry
on other wickedness, until vagabonds and bold spirits like himself gathered
round him, and he began to acquire strength, and to ravage the parts around
Almiligh, until, at last, he obtained possession of that place and parts around.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 985

before] Balkh,? as has been already related, he became

2 He was not ^^ investing” Ais own city, as some writers, who probably did
not know that Balkh belonged to him, have made out.

Who held possession immediately before is not stated, but, probably, a
governor on the part of the late Gir Khan did.

This upstart is Mr. H. H. Howorth’s ‘‘ Prince of Almaligh ;” and he says
[page 20] that Erdmann says ‘‘he was known as Merdt Shudsha (1. €, lion
heart, or lion man), and adds, ‘‘ This latter statement is probably well founded,
for the Khans of Almaligh are doubtless to be identified with the Lion Khans
of Kashgar mentioned by Visdelou,” and yet, only on the preceding page, on
the authority of Abii-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, he at once identifies this adven-
turer, who had only just obtained possession, as one and the same as “ Arslan
Khan of the Aar/uks, who was also Prince of Kayalik or Kabalik.” Whata
jumble of errors have we here! Now, what Erdmann, in his innocence, sup-
poses to be atitle is mercly the simple Persian words vitiated, namely, mard-t-
shuja—a bold or intrepid man ; and it is utterly impossible that he could bea
Kankuli and a Karliiggh—two totally different tribes—at the same time, or,
that he was ruler or prince of Kayalik, previously referred to in another note,
who had submitted to the Mughals years before, and had again presented him-
self and joined them, on their way to Utrar. Mr. Howorth appears to have
also forgotten that, at page 66 of his book, he states that, in 1209 [A.D. =
606-7 H.], when ‘‘Jingis” returned to his ‘‘yurt,” he found there “the
Idikut of the Uighurs, Arglan Khan, chief of the Karliks (i.e. Turks of
Kayalik), amd Ozar, Prince of Almaligh, who had come to do him homage.”

Arsalan Khan will appear on the scene in several places of our author’s
narrative, but that he and this upstart were totally different persons is beyonda
doubt, as may be seen farther on.

I have already noticed that, because some of the Afrasiyabi rulers of Kash-
ghar were styled Arsalan, it did not follow that they were all styled ‘‘ the Lion
Khans.’’ Such an impossible statement will not be found in any of the historians
of the Mughals, not even in the work of that Persian—‘‘ the great Raschid.”

Now it is very evident that, if Almaligh had belonged to Arsalan Khan, the
Karligh, and the Kankuli, Uzar, had taken it from him, they would not have
both appeared together in the yérat of the Chingiz Khan.

The Chinese historians state, with respect to these very events, that Ko-pau-
yu, a Chinese general in the Mughal army, on recovering from a dangerous
wound received in a previous battle, was sent to invest Bigh-Baligb, N. of
Turfan, the capital of the Yiddi-Kit of the Ighiirs of the Muhiammadan writers
[why this should be, seeing that the Yiddi-Kiit was a vassal of the Mughals at
this time, is not said], but, on the other hand, the Chinese say Ho-chew, E. of
Turfan, was the capital of the I-ghiirs ; and that, at this time, Gon-chor, chief
of the tribe of Yong-ku, in W. Tartary, subdued the city and country of
Almaligh—O-li-ma-lu. Further, that Kosmeli, one of the great chiefs of the
last of the Kitan dynasty, on becoming aware that the Mughals were come to
make war on Koghlik, persuaded the chief of the city of Asda (supposed to
be near to Kaghghar) to submit to Jabah, that Koshlik had raised up all the
country N. W. of Turfan, on the E. and W., as far as the Sibiin, leagued with
the prince of Kichah, or Kinchah, and the Kanglis N.E. of Samrkand, and,
after slaying Kogsblik, the Naemans, and Kangli [Kanghulis, or Kankulis],
acknowledged the Chingiz Khan’s supremacy.

To return to the upstart, Uzar. After he had obtained possession of Alma-

3 र

986 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

filled with despondency, and retired precipitately towards

ligh—the ‘‘ Turkish Prince” of which is said, by Abi-l-Fida, to have been
absent at this time, and which city is said by him to lie in the same degree of
Lat. as Kashghar—he set out for Fulad-Sum [= 545], which was one of the
greater cities in that part [afterwards buried in the sands, like several other
cities], and gained possession of it likewise. Koghliik used continually to lead
troops against him, defeat him, and ravage and lay waste his recently acquired
territory. When Uzar’s position became dangerous, he despatched an agent
to the Chingiz Khan, and complained of Koshlik’s tyranny! The Chingiz
Khan sent him a friendly answer—his being hostile to Koshlik was enough to
ensure that—and Uzar proceeded to his presence and was well received, a dress
of honour and other favours were bestowed upon him, and तां sought his
daughter in marriage. The Chingiz Khan advised him to abstain from hunting
excursions [the mode of hunting of the Mughals and other peoples of Asia, often
referred to in our author’s, as in other histories, is very different from our ideas of
hunting, but I have not space to describe it here], lest he might fall a prey into
the hands of a hunter foe, referring to Koshliik, and presented him with a thou-
sand sheep in order that he might not have occasion to go forth in search of game.
However, when Uzar returned to Almaligh, he again went out, when suddenly
and unexpectedly the forces of Koshlik came upon him in a hunting-ground,
captured him, and brought him before the gate of Almaligh. The inhabitants,
however, shut the gates of the city, and resolved to. defend it. Fighting com-
menced, when, at this crisis, news arrived of the coming of the hosts of the
Chingiz Khan, for he began to grow alarmed at Koshlik’s continued success.
On this Koshlik’s troops retired from before Almaligh, and, on the way back
to their own territory, put Uzar, the Kankuli, to death. The Chingiz Khin
showed favour to his son, Saghnak-Tigin [In the account of ‘those who pre-
sented themselves to the Chingiz Khan on his way to Utrar, which occurred
very shortly after, the chief of Almaligh is styled Takia-Tigin. See note},
page 969] gave him one of Jiji’s daughters to wife, and sent him back to
Almialigh [from this it would seem that he had been kept in the Mugbal camp
as security for his father’s behaviour], where he took up his residence ; and
Arsalan Khan, the Karliigh, who, at this period, was a vassal of the Mughal
ruler, who had betrothed one of his daughters to him, was, by him, permitted
to go back to Kaialigh or Kaialik.

In the meantime the Chingiz Khian’s envoys and the merchants had been
put to death and plundered through the perfidy of Anial-Juk, the Kankuli,
whose title was Ghi-ir Khan, and whose title, in the A/SS. of our author’s
work, by mistake, is written Kadr Khan. The Chingiz Khan, before under-
taking the war against the Sultan of Khwarazm to avenge that outrage, deter-
mined not to leave behind him any one likely to contemplate sedition in his
territories during his absence ; and, as his chief enemies, Koshliik, the Naeman,
and Tiik-Tughan, the Makrit, were committing disturbances and sedition in
the vicinity of his line of route, he determined to finish Koshluk first, and,
accordingly, the Nii-yin, Jabah, was sent ‘‘¢o ¢he westward” against him, with a
large army of several fomdns, from the frontier of Kara-Khitiae, as already stated.

Koshlik, having committed violence and tyranny beyond measure in
Khutan and Kashghar, and endeavoured -to extinguish Islam therein, had
nothing to expect but hostility from its people, and therefore, on hearing of the
approach of a Mughal army to that frontier, he fled from KaAshghar, and
Jabah was allowed to take possession of it. He at once issued a proclamation
that every one might follow his own faith unmolested. Every Nieman that

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 987

Nishapir. On the Chingiz Khan receiving information of
the Sultan’s departure from the environs of Balkh, and of
the sedition in, and dispersion of, the army which was along
with him, he ordered 60,000 Mughal horse, from his own
camp, to cross the Jihiin, and despatched this army, under
the standard of two notable Mughals, one of whom was
the Bahadur, Sahiidah by name, and the other the Ni-in,
Yamah,’ in pursuit of the Sultan.

fell into his hands was slaughtered, and he sent out bodies of troops in all
directions in pursuit of Koghlik. He, out of fear for his life, expecting no
mercy from his relentless foes, threw himself into the mountain fastnesses of
Badakhshin, and, in the agitated and perturbed state of mind he was in,
entered a darah [a valley between hills, with a river running through it, also a
pass] which had no way out ofdt. Some call it the Darah of the Sarigh-Kol—
the Sarigh Lake, or Lake of the Sarigh—J° &~—or Sarik-kul—JS ज~
Here we can easily find-our ground. The word Sarigh occurs in Sarfgh-i-
Ighiir, and in Sarigh Pamir, which appears in Col. Walker’s map under the
incorrect form of ‘‘ Saris Pamir.” A party of hunters, natives of Badakhshan,
were pursuing game in those hills when the Mughals suddenly pounced upon
them. They told the Badakhshis that they would spare their lives if they
would seize and make over to them some fugitives who had lately fled from
them. So some of the hunters, who had noticed some strangers, surrounded
Koshliik and his few dependents, captured them, and delivered them over to
the Mughals, who slew the whole of them ; and Koghliik’s head was forthwith
cut off and taken away along with them. In that affair much booty, and
precious jewels, fell into the hands of the Badakhshi hunters. Through the
death of Koghliik, sovereign of the Naemans, the countries of Khutan and
Kashghar, to the Ab-i-Fanakat, which is also called the Sihiin, were added to
the empire of the Chingiz Khan.

3 This name is written in several ways. Abii-l-Ghazi, Bahadur, in the
Kazan ed. of his History, makes it #» Chanah, which is, apparently, a mis-
print for a» Our author, and Fasib-i, and some others, write it Yamah—ay
but it is for the most part written Jabah—a-—in other works. Fagib-f too
has Suntae for Swidae.

I inust give a few details here, in addition to my notes at page 276 to 278,
respecting the movements of these three Nii-yans, which may be considered
generally correct, and they are chiefly taken from the Tarikh-i-Alfi, Jahan
15086, Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir, Rauzat-us-Safa, and Habib-us-Siyar, but it must
be borne in mind that the authors of the four last, particularly, wrote under Mu-
ghal rule and Mughal patronage, and from one to three centuries after our author,
who was contemporary with the Chingiz Khan, his sons, and grandsons, and
knew persons who had taken part in the actions he relates, and therefore—
although bis accounts are meagre —he is entitled to full credit here. The authors
who wrote under Mughal influence appear inclined to lessen the number of the
Mughal forces on most occasions, while our author, who was very hostile to
them, perhaps inclines to exaggerate a little on the other side. However,
that a force of 30,000 horse only was engaged in this expedition of over three
years, through half of Asia, containing great and strong fortresses, mighty |
cities, difficult passes, and tortuous defiles, is not worthy of credit, for, had

3R2

४

988 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
That host, in the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 617 प

such a small number been sent they would have been liable to be cut off when
separated, in a country too where there were men who only wanted leaders to
make them fight. Even a force of 60,000, as our author states, allowing for
those killed, disabled, or carried off by disease, was small enough ; but, it is
certain, that the Mughals, as was their custom, compelled men of the places
they captured or passed through to join them, and incorporated them in their
armies ; and, by this means, they managed to save their own men at the cost
of their recruits. ‘We must also remember that they had to depend on the
parts they overran for supplies. That they could be resisted in far greater
numbers than 30,000 or even 60,000 by resolute men, the defence of Utrar,
Khujand, Tirmid, Sistin, and Khwarazm, abundantly shows, as well as the
determined resistance of other places mentioned by our author farther on, but
which xo other writers have even named, much less described.

When the Chingiz Khan had reached Samrkand, in Zi-Hijjah, 616 H., [end
of February, A.D. 1220], and had completely invested that place, news, it is said,
reached him that the Sultan had crossed the Jihun by the Tirmid ferry [See
note *, page 275. Perhaps his informant was Badr-ud-Din], that the greater
part of his troops were stationed in different fortresses, and the remainder
dispersed [see the note previously referred to] in various parts. The Chingiz
Khan consequently held counsel with his Nii-yins, saying, that, as but very
few troops remained with the Sultan, and his son, Jalal-ud-Din’s advice to
concentrate his forces was not complied with, it was now possible to complete
his downfall before his nobles and great men, and the armies of the different
parts of his empire, should have time to rally round him. It was therefore
determined that three Mughal Amirs of fomdans, who were among the greatest
of the Mughal leaders, namely, the Ni-yan, Jabah, of the tribe of Baisut, the
Yamah of our author [4a and a» might be mistaken one for the other in M/SS.
Our author is distinct in his statement in several places], Yafa-i, Fagib-i, and
some others, with one /omdn [10,000 horse] as the van division, and the Ba-
hadur, Swidie—the Sahiidah of our author and others—of the Mughal tribe of
Kungkur-at, and the Nii-yan [the Bahadur ?], Tikchar, also written Tikachar
and Taghachir, with their respective omdns, should be directed to follow Jabah
[Yamah] in succession in pursuit of the Sultan. They were to pursue him
throughout his empire, and not to rest until they had captured him. If they
came up with, and found themselves not strong enough to cope with him, they
were to make it known to him, the Chingiz Khan, and not to turn aside; to
spare those who submitted, and leave Shahnahs or Intendants with them, but
to annihilate all that showed hostility. They were likewise to understand that
three years were sufficient to accomplish this task, and turn the Sultan’s
empire upside down ; that he himself did not intend to remain in the countries
west of the Sihiin more than three years ; and that they were to rejoin him, at
his native y#vaé, or encamping ground, in Mughalistan, by way of the Dasht
or Steppe of Kibehak [along the north side ,of the Caspian]. They were
further instructed to acquaint him in case of their being in danger, that his son,
Tili, would be at once sent after them, at the head of an army, into Khurasam,
and another army against Khwarazm, under his other sons.

These three leaders at once set out, and Jabah [Yamah], with his /omeds,
formed the van, while the others were directed to follow him in succession [at
an interval of some few days probably]. They crossed the Amijah, or Jihun,
by the Panj-ab ford, at the end of Rabi’-ul-Akhir—some say in the previous

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM 989
crossed the river Jihiin; and, in conformity with the

month—617 H. [about the latter part of June, A.D. 1220], and pushed on to
Balkh, where they arrived together. They were waited on by a deputation of
the chief men, received supplies, left an Intendant there, and then, according
to their instructions, proceeded towards Hirat.

On the arrival of Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahiidah] at Hirat, they
did not molest it because, when they entered that territory, the Malik
of Hirat [Amin Malik, according to the Habib-us-Siyar, whose title was
Yamin-ul-Mulk] sent an emissary to meet them, and to signify his submission
and obedience, he, from their unexpected arrival, being in no condition to
resist them; but such proceedings, on that Malik’s part, are contrary to the
statements of our author and the tenour of that Malik’s life. See the account
of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din’s coming to Ghaznin farther on. They were allowed
to receive supplies, but were not admitted within the walls. The two leaders
continued to follow each other towards Zawah ; and, when Tikachar reached
Hirat, he must needs refuse to believe the statement of the Malik’s submission
to Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahidah], and commence hostilities. The
Malik therefore, of necessity, had to defend himself [See note >, page 1014],
and, in a conflict which ensued between the Mughals and Hiratis, Tikajar
was killed, along with a great many of his force. This is a totally different
person from the son-in-law of the Chingiz Khan killed before Nishabir.

In the meantime, the Malik of Hirat having sent messengers to the two
Nii-yans in advance, complaining of Tiikachar’s conduct, agents from them to
the Malik arrived merely in time to conduct his defeated troops to join the
other two leaders. From this, it will be perceived, that it was only want of
spirit, or rather want of union and concerted action, that prevented the Musal-
mans from exterminating this Mughal force entirely.

From what has been already narrated by our author above, it will have been
Seen that he knew more of the actual facts of this affair than the pro-Mughal
writers I have taken this from. Tikachar was killed near Fughanj, a depend-
ency of Hirat, and not at or before Hirat itself.

These forces under these three leaders were not the only troops despatched
from the Chingiz Khan’s camp into Khurasdn in 617 प, Arsalan Khan of
Kaialik, and the Juzbi, Tilan, the Talangit [?] [see note 8, page 1061], were
despatched across the Jihiin, about the same time, to invest Walkh of
Tukharistan, which was bravely defended, and defied all the efforts of the
invaders for eight months. See pages 1004—1006,

When Jabah [Yamah] and Swidiae [Sahiidah] reached Zawah, they were
in want of supplies [according to Rashid-ud-Din], and all their solicitations
and threats did not induce the people to open their gates or give them any,
so, being in want, they stormed it vigorously. Others, however, state, that,
the gates being shut upon them, and as the Sultan was their object, they
would have left Zawah unmolested, but those within began to beat their
drums, and sound their clarions, and from the walls greeted their departure
with shouts, jeers, and obscene language, which so exasperated the Mughals
that they turned back, and attacked the place. In the space of three days
they carried it by storm, massacred all the inhabitants, young and old, and
levelled Zawah with the dust, after which feat they turned their faces towards
Nishabir, without delay, pushing on day and night, ‘‘like the autumn blast
or clouds of spring, slaughtering all who came across them, and destroying
and burnjny all they possibly could.”

t

990 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

Chingiz Khan’s commands, they did not inflict any injury
on any of the cities and towns of Khurdsan, and had

The Sultan had reached Nishabiir in the month of Safar, 617 प्त, [See note
3, page 275], and left it precipitately in the following Rabi-ul-Akhir; and
this shows that the Mughals could not have crossed the Jihiin in the Jatter
month, but must have done so in the preceding one, as mentioned in the note
referred to. The Sultan who had lost all heart—indeed some fatality seems
to have overcome him—probably, the prophecy of the astrologers, already
mentioned, may have influenced his superstition—could not be induced to
make any stand, and seemed only to seek a place of safety. The females of
his family he sent to the strong fortress of Karan-dujz, to the care of Taj-ud-
Din, Tughan. The Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Nizim-ud-Din, Abi-l-Ma’ali, the Ktib,
a native of Jam, the Ziya-ul-Mulk, the ’Ariz, the Zawzani, and the Majir
[by some, Majd]-ul-Mulk, ’Umr-i-Raji, the Kafi, who were of the Sadrs of
Khurasan and Wazirs of the Sultan, were left to administer the affairs of
Nighabir and its dependencies ; and the Sultan left it, taking the route of
Isfardin and Rai, which he passed without making any stay, and made for
Kazwin, at the foot of the citadel of which his son, Rukn-ud-Din, the ruler
of गण्ड, was encamped with 30,000 ’frakis. Others again say, that the
Sultan did stay at Rai, and that he there h ard of a Mughal army having
entered Khurasan. On the way to Kazwin, the veteran, Nusrat-ud-Din,
Hazar-Asp, also styled Hazar-Saf, one of the greatest of the ancient Maliks,
and father-in-law of Ghiyag-ud-Din, Pir Shah, the Sultin’s son, joined him
from Lar; and the Sultan went along with him to inspect Shiran-koh, with
the object of staying there.

When Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahiidah] reached Nighabiir, they
tortured every one they could meet with in order to extort information respect-
ing the Sultain’s movements, and sent, dnd called upon the Fakhbr-ul-Mulk,
and his colleagues, to submit to the Chingiz Khin’s authority. They supplied
the wants of the Mughals, and sent out three agents, with offerings, to express
their submission, and to state that he, the Fakhr-ul-Mulk, was an old man of
the class of people of the pen, that they were in search of the Sultan, and, in
case they should overcome him in battle, the country would naturally be
theirs—not, “Speed after him,” etc., as a late writer, using some imperfect
translation, says—“ and that he and his colleagues would be their slaves.”

Jabah [Yamah] gave them encouragement, and conciliated them ; and,
taking into consideration what had happened at Hirat, left a Shahnah, or
Intendant, with them for their security, and issued a proclamation, in the name
of the Chingiz Khan, written in the I-ghiiri character, in the following words,
or words to the same effect: ‘‘ Be it known to every one, far and near, high
and low, great and small, of I-rin and Tir [i.e. Turan], that the Pure God
[How history repeats itself! Here also the Pure God—the God of Peace—is
invoked, but not under the veil of Christianity] hath given unto me the sove-
reignty of the east and of the west. Whoso shows hostility to me shall see no
more safety in this world : his kinsmen and connexions shall perish, together
with his women and children; but they, who place their heads upon the line of
obedience unto me, shall, instead of the cap, place a diadem on their heads.”
He also advised them to submit when the Mughal army, which was following,
should arrive, and not to trust to the strength of their walls.

The Mughal leaders made no stay at Nishabir, but pushed onwards.
Jabah [Yamah] made towards Mazandaran by way of Juwain; and, on

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 99!

nothing to do with them, except in the territory of Hirat, at
a place which they call the To-i‘ of Biishanj [Fushanj]

arriving therein, committed great outrages, more.particularly at Astarabad,
and at Amul, where he ordered a general massacre. Swidade [Sahiidah] moved
to Jam and Tiis. The latter place refused to submit, on which he massacred
the inhabitants, and then proceeded by way of Radakan [a well known place
in history and geography, but it appears in Major St. John’s new map of
Persia, published by the India Office, under the impossible name of ‘‘ Radfan "J,
Isfarain, or Isfarayin, as it is also spelt, and Khabiishin, to Dimghan. The
people took refuge in the strong and famous fortress of Gird-Koh, W. of the
city, and refused to submit, but a good many, who could not reach it, were
massacred. He then moved upon Simnan, where many people were put to
the sword, but places which submitted were spared.

Nusrat-ud-Din, Hazar-Asp or Hazar-Saf, the Ata-Bak of Lar, who, as
already stated, had reached the Sultan’s presence, advised him to take shelter
in Tang-Tali—also written Tangah-Taki—.G s&3—between Luristan and
Fars, as related in note 5, page 277, but, hearing of the fall of Rai, and the
near arrival of the Mughals, the Sultan and his sons retired towards Karun-
dujz, and Nusrat-ud-Din is said to have retired to Lar ; and other grandees
and chiefs likewise sought places of safety.

On his way towards Karun-dujz, the Sultin narrowly escaped a party of the
enemy, as related previously, at page 277 ; and he stayed there only two days to
get fresh horses, and then turned his face, it is said, towards Baghdad [s!uaJ—
the place of all others, save the camp of the Chingiz Khan, which he would
be likely to avoid], but some ASS. have, to Fulad [१५-6८-५4] ; but,
hearing that the Mughals had already reached Karun-dujz, he changed his
route for the fortress of Surkhahan-¥., a .—and from thence entered Gilan.

Jabah [Yamah] left a force to invest Karan-dujz, and again set out towards .
Rai in pursuit of the unfortunate Sultan. Now, considering that, at the out-
Set, if only 30,000 men were detached, what with fighting at Hirat and other
places, besides the losses the Mughals must have sustained after such marches,
to leave a force behind to invest this stronghold must have so weakened their
humbers as to have rendered their destruction easy, I cannot, therefore, for a
moment, credit the statement that only 30,000 horse were detached. Consider-
Ing that the Pro-Mughal writers generally lessen the numbers of their own
forces, to flatter their patrons’ vanity, our author's statement, that 60,000 was
the number despatched, is much more reliable, and much more probable.

When Sultin Mubammad reached Gilan, Sa’liik, one of the chiefs of the
Gil, received him, and advised him to take up his residence in Gilan. He
remained seven days there, when he again set out towards Rustamdar for
Astadarah [s,luc»'], or Astarah [s-.\—the Asdar—,ls.'—of others, and
Astawa or Istawa of the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh], where all his treasures that
remained with him were lost. From thence he set out in the direction of
Di-ni-i—_J ilo [in some M/SS. (51७ and even Jy')], a dependency of Amul,
and, from that place, embarked on the Kulzum [the sea—the Caspian or Sea
of Khurz], on the advice of the Chief of Mazandaran, as related at page 278.

4 53—to-i—but, in a few copies, 9-9०-2. In Pughto, ०८ in the mascu-
line, and fo0e’a’h—also written ¢o’e-a—in the feminine, signifying—split, rent,
scattered, dispersed, etc., is the past part. of the intrans. verb fo-vedal, but
it does not follow that the above is a Pushto word. The printed text is
hopelessly defective here.

992 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.

where one of the chief men of the Mughal army, in a foray
therein, went to hell. Bishanj was but a small fortifica-
tion; and they took it by storm, and martyred all the
Musalmans in the place. From thence they pushed on
towards Nishapir, and arrived there, and appeared before
the gate of that city. A battle having taken place there
[with the troops therein quartered ], the son-in-law of the
Chingiz Khan was killed.’ Without occupying themselves
in avenging his death, they proceeded onwards towards
Tabaristén and Mazandaran in search of Sultan Muham-
mad, Khwarazm Shah. The Sultan was encamped within
the darah [valley and pass] of Timmishiah,° on the road to
Mazandaran, when, suddenly, the Mughal troops came up
with him.

Sultan Muhammad left Utsuz, the Hajib, under the
canopy of state in the centre of his troops,’ with orders to
move them to Damghan and ‘Irak, whilst he, himself,
entered into the mountains of Mazandaran, and embarked
on the sea [the Caspian], as has been previously related.
The Mughal forces now separated into two armies ; the
one, which was greatest, pushed on towards "Irak in pursuit
of Sultan Muhammad’s troops, whilst the smaller one
proceeded down the davah of Timmishiah.

Respecting the movements of both these armies, no
further information, such as might be considered certain,
reached 11012521. Some said that, not finding Sultan
Mubammad, Khwarazm Shah, in Mazandaran and ’Irak,
they fell upon the son of that Sultan, whom they were
wont to style Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Ghiri Shanasti, and
martyred him and the forces of "Irak; and, by way of
Azarbaijan, came out in the direction of the Dasht-i-
Khifchak ; but God knows best. 9

5 This is incorrect : it was on the second occasion that a son-in-law of the
Chingiz Khan—of whom he had several—was killed. Our author has con-
fused this event. See page 1028, and note » page 1034.

€ Not marked in modern maps. It is also written Timmeghah and
Timmishah.

7 He had but a small number with him.

8 As our author, up to the time he wrote his work, was in doubt respecting
the subsequent movements of these two Mughal commanders, he having, in the
year 024 H., left his native place and country about the time of their return, and

retired into Hind, in order to connect what I have before briefly narrated, I will
give a short account of their farther proceedings in this Mughal raid.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 993

The Mughals first possessed themselves of Karan-dujz [which was never
called ‘‘ Karendar,” nor was it situated ‘‘ between Nessa and Nisbapoor,” nor
was it situated ‘‘in the Kurdish mountains, between Kermanshah and Bagh-
dad,” at a place called ‘‘ Ardahan,” nor was it ‘‘in Khorassan.” See ‘‘ Mon-
gols Proper” pp. 81 and 714], so called after Karan, an ancient Dialamah king
and champion, of the Gil race, and situated in the Kazwin Darah—yo y,b—
that is to say, Karan’s Castle. Without the points on the last letter, + might
be mistaken for , but any one acquainted with the Persian language would
naturally, whether there were points or not, read ,o affixed to the name of a
fortress, as द, as a matter of course. It was plundered and levelled with
the dust, after which the Mughals moved against I-lal—Jh! [called Lal
by our author, at page 280, which was not called ^ Ilak ” then, and I think
there is no proof adducible that it is called ‘‘Al Ask” now. It is precisely
the same word, in the original, as PETIS DE LA CROIXx’s ‘‘ Ylale”.] where
was the Sultadn’s mother, and other ladies of his family, and the younger
children, and invested it.

Abi-1-Ghazi, Bahadur’s history has I-lan, but in the Tarikh-i-Alfi this place
is, invariably, styled the fortress of Lar-jan—,le,Y— and it is also stated that
it was on a mountain in Tabaristan, which, in after times, was noted for a
spring, the drops of water from which petrified. The same authority states
that Yamah [as in our author, and the Jabah of others] detached a Mughal
leader named Suntie with a force to invest it.

No one could call to recollection the time when that stronghold ever wanted
for water, for cisterns had been constructed previously, capable of containing
such a quantity of water that if no rain fell for years, when they were once
filled, there would have been no want of it. It seemed, however, as though
Providence was against the Khwarazmis and Musalmans in general, for, in
fifteen days after the investment began, there was scarcely any water remaining,
and no rain fell—an unusual event in that district—from the time the Mughals
invested it. Consequently, the Sultan’s mother, Turkin Khatiin, and the
Wazir, Nasir-ud-Din, who was there also, were compelled to come down, and
Surrender. Almost at the moment of their reaching the foot of the walls the
rain began to fall, and continued to pour, in such wise, that the water flowed
out under the portals of the fortress !

The place was sacked, and all the vast treasures of gems, gold, and other
Precious things, fell into the hands of the barbarian Mughals, to such an
amount that, besides precious stones and the like, ten thousand thousand—
10,000,000—miskals [about 13 drachms each] of red gold, and 1000 kharwars—
aload sufficient for an ass—of silken fabrics, clothes, etc., were among the
spoils. This booty was sent, along with the unfortunate Turkan Khatin, her’
children, grandchildren, and connexions, and Nasir-ud-Din, the Wazir,
towards Samrkand, to the camp of the Chingiz Khan; but, on their way
thither, they found that his camp was then in the neighbourhood of Tal-kan[Nasr-
koh of Tal-kan of Khurds&n, as our author states farther on]. When the cap-
tives were brought before him, the Wazir, Nasir-ud-Din, was forthwith put to
death, together with all the male children of the Sultan’s family, however young.
What befel the females may be imagined. I shall have something more to
Say respecting them and their cruel fate farther on. After that, when Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din was defeated on the banks of the Sind, and his aram too fell
into the power of the Mughals, the females were sent to join Turkan Khatin,
and were all kept together in one place.

When Sultan Muhammad, who was then seeking safety on one of the

994 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

islands in the Caspian [Ab-i-Sugin, referred to in note $, page 278, is con-
tained in the map of the Caspian and countries around it, in the MASALIK WA
MAMALIK, and is placed on the south shore, about midway between Amul and
Astarabad], as previously related at page 279, heard of the capture of this
stronghold, and the fate of his family, he died, within a few days, of a broken
heart [but, according to our author, and contrary to all those who wrote after
him, and improbable too—whilst being conveyed back towards Khwarazm.
See page 279], in Shawwéal, the tenth month of 617 प्र. [end of Nov., or early
in Decr., old style, 1220 A.D.]. Considering that the first day of 618 H.
commenced on the 24th of February, 1221 A.D., it is very evident that the
Sultan could not have died on the roth of January of that year, as stated in
‘* Mongols Proper,” on the authority of M. Wolff.

After the capture of Karan-dujz and I-lal, and the death of the Sultan, had
become known to the Mughal Ni-yins, Jabah [Yamah] and Swidie [Sa-
hiidah], they despatched an agent to the camp of the Chingiz Khan to inform
him thereof, and to intimate that the late Sultan’s son, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din,
was coming in his direction ; that they themselves were thus relieved of any
responsibility respecting them ; and would now proceed to carry out the rest of
his instructions by pushing on into Irak and Mazandaran, and would rejoin
him, within the prescribed time, by way of the Dar-band of Shirwan, and the
Dasht-i-Khifchak.

Where the Mughals wintered—for it was mid-winter when they heard of the
Sultan’s death—if they went into winter-quarters, is not precisely stated, but it
must have been in the north-western part of Khurasan; and as soon as the
season opened in the following year—618 H.—Jabah [Yamah] set out towards
Rai by way of Khowaf. Having reached it, expecting he should be unable to
take it alone, he summoned Swidae [Sahidah] to join him. There were,
however, unknown to them, allies within the walls. The inhabitants of Rai
were divided into two religious factions, the Hanifis and the Sha’fis. The
former had, not long before, burnt a masjid belonging to their rivals, upoa
which, when it became known that the Mughals were coming, the Kazi of the
Sha’fis, and a number of his party, hastened forth to welcome them. They
then offered to betray the city into their hands, the price being, for betraying
their country and faith, and playing into the hands of barbarians, the destruc
tion of the rival sect. The Mughal leaders accepted the terms; and they,
having been admitted within the walls by the traitors, proceeded to butcher
the Hanifis, but, having had clear proof of the disinterested friendship of the
3120715, and their trustworthiness, the Mughals massacred them also, and
completely destroyed the city. Thus was Rai—one of the most flourishing,
populous, and finest cities of Asia—desolated, plundered, and depopulated ;
and it never after recovered. This took place early in 618 H. After this feat,
Jabah [Yamah] advanced towards Hamadin, and Swidie [Sahidah] to
Kazwin.

When Jabah reached Kum, to use the expressive simile of one of my
authorities, ‘‘ by the Mughals, the people of Kum became gum ’’—the Persian
for lost, destroyed, annihilated, etc. At Kum, too, were two religious fac-
tions—the Shi’ahs and the Sunnis. The former sent a deputation to wait oa
Jabah [Yamah], and incited him to destroy the latter ; and, as usual with the
Mughals, after slaughtering the followers of the rival sect, they sent the fol-
lowers of ’Ali after them, carried off such as escaped the sword into captivity,
and left not a living soul at Kum ; in fact, they ‘‘ destroyed” them completely,
in ‘‘the true Circassian style.”

>

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 995

When Jabeh [Yamah] arrived near Hamadin, the venerable Sayyid, ’Ala-
ud-Daulah, the Hamadani—some, including the Raugat-us-Safa, say Majd-ud-
Daulah, his son—of the race of ’Alf, who was dwelling there—not ‘‘com-
manding,” save in a spiritual point of view—sent him offerings, and tendered
submission, in order to save the place and people, and agreed to receive a
Mughal Shabnah.

In the meantime, the Mughals obtained information that a body of the late
Sultan’s forces, under two leaders, Beg-Tigin, Salahi, and Kij-Bika Khan,
had assembled at Najds [or Nakhas? A/SS. .~\¢], upon which they marched
against them, overthrew, pursued, and dispersed them. Jabah [Yamah]
attacked Giizrid, Khurramabad, and Nih-adwand, which were plundered and
burnt, after the people were put to thesword. The Mughals continued to carry
their depredations into every part of "Irak, with the exception of Isfahan,
which remained safe in the hands of the Khwarazmis, and did not fall under
the yoke of the Mughals until many years after, and then treachery caused its
fall, as our author relates farther on. After the slaughter of a vast number of
people, Kazwin was the next point assailed. The people defended it despe-
rately, for the Kazwinis adopted their usual custom of street-fighting, which
the disposition and nature of the streets of their city enabled them successfully
todo. They fought hand to hand with the Mughals, and some 50,000 men
were killed altogether on both sides. The city was captured at last, And those
who still remained alive were massacred, and the place was sacked. ` ६ stands to
reason that, if only 30,000 Mughals crossed the Oxus originally, as said by the
pro- Mughal! historians, they must have been somewhat reduced even were this
the only fighting they engaged in, and therefore, as I have before mentioned,
the 60,000 of our author must be much nearer the truth ; and even in this case
the Mughals must have greatly increased their troops by forced recruiting by
the way. In more than one place, farther on, the despatch of fresh troops by
the Chingiz Khan to reinforce these two Nii-yins is expressly mentioned.

Having plundered, destroyed, and massacred to such degree in Irak, the
winter season [618-19 H.] having now arrived, Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae
[Sahtidah] took up their winter-quarters in some of the dependencies of Rai.
When the spring came round the Mughals turned their faces towards Agar-
baijan, reached Zinjin, took it, and massacred the people. They then
advanced to Arbfl, which they treated in the same fashion, and burnt it, after
which they marched by way of Sar-i-Ab towards Tabriz, At that time, the
ruler of Azarbaijan was the Ata-Bak, Mugaffar-ud-Din, Yiiz-Bak [see page
171}, the son of the Jahan Pahlawan, and the last of that dynasty [see
page 172, note ग], who, on the appearance of the enemy near Tabriz, con-
cealed himself, and despatched an agent to Jabah [Yamah], together with
valuable offerings, soliciting an accommodation. This was agreed to, and, it
having been arranged, the Mughals passed on without farther molesting
Tabriz.

According to the Raugat-us-Safi, however, ‘‘the Ata-Bak, Jahan Pahlawin,
resisted the Mughals at first, but, having been defeated and routed, sent his
son, Viiz-Bak, tendering submission, and despatched valuable presents, and

thus saved his territory from further hostility” ! The Jahin Pahlawan, how-
ever, died thirty-seven years before this, in 582 H.

The greater part of "Irak and Azarbaijan having been trodden by the hoofs
of the Mughals, and winter coming on, Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahiidah]
took up their winter (619-620 H.] quarters in the plain of Mughan, but,
according to Alfi, at Sifa—\,.. .

996 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI

I am unaware whether the accounts taken from Wolff, Erdmann, and other
«^ Professors,” quoted by the author of the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” [p. 82], are
verbatim ; but, whether or not, these events have been made a terrible hash
of in that book, and some, especially respecting the return of the Maghals home-
ward, have been mixed up with events which happened when Jiji entered
Khifchak some years subsequently. ‘‘Chepé Noyan, and Subutae Behadur,”
as they are styled therein, are made to capture, after some other places, “Aum,
Hamadan, and Rudbar,” and, afterwards, are marched upon ‘* Xazzin,” and
the Sultan, who is, by the same account, still Aving, is followed to the south
shore of the Caspian. This was in 1220 4.7. Then we hear that ‘‘Chepé”
and ‘‘Subutae,” after taking Ilak [p. 93], marched against Rai, where the
rival sects bring destruction upon each other. Then ‘‘ Aum” is taken a second
time, and ‘‘Chepé” makes a raid upon ‘‘the towns of Irak, Dinawar,” etc.,
attacks “ Nehawend, the far-famed Ecbatana,” while ‘‘ Subutae”’ captures
Kazvin over again [p. 93], although it had been already taken, previous to the
Sultan’s death, and 50,000 people slaughtered [p. 82]. After this, ‘‘ Chepé”
advances through ^^ [ली upon Azerbaidjan, which, together with Arran,
were then ruled by the Atabeg Uzbeg,” etc., etc., and, in the spring of the
following year, after wintering in ‘‘ the rich plains of Mogan,” the “ Mongols
advance into Georgia.” These events are said to have taken place defore the
Sultain’s death, in 1221 A.D., at p. 82, and, at p. 93, towards the end of
1222 A.D. [= 618 H.]. At p. 97, we are again informed that, ‘‘in 1224 A.D.
[= 621 H.], a small body of 3000 [the original 30,000?] Mongols ” was able to
once more ‘‘ destroy Rayi, to do the same to Awm, and Kashan,” etc., etc., so
५५ Rai” or ^" Rayi,” as it is indiscriminately styled, and also ‘‘ Kum,” were,
according to this account, destroyed no less than fwo and ¢hree times respec-
tively, in about as many years. How speedily these cities must have recovered
again from total ruin and destruction! All these different statements, how-
ever, refer really to one and the same events, for, on the first occasion of their
inroad beyond the Oxus, with the exception, probably, of Marw and Khwa-
razm, no Mughal troops were left to hold any position in Khurasan or "Irak-i-
’Ajam, and, consequently, in Uktde’s time fresh armies had to be sent. See
page 1007.

During this winter [619-620 H.—the winter of 1222-23 A.D. ], 2000—some
say 10,000—Giirji [Georgian] cavalry, all picked men, attacked the Mughals—
where is not said, but in one of their advanced positions probably, and, as
might have been expected from such a small force, they were overthrown.
The Girjis now made preparations for attacking the Mughals in the coming
spring, and sought help from Asia Minor, from the Diar-i-Bakr, and Diar-i-
Rabi’. The Mughals, at the same time, were meditating an invasion of Gir-
jistfn as soon as the season should open. At this time, a Turk slave in the
service of the Ata-Bak, Yiiz-Bak, named Agbhriish, also called Aghish, col-
lected together a considerable force, consisting of Khalj Turks, Kurds, and
other adventurers, and entered the service of the Mughals. This is a speci-
men of one of the ways in which they received reinforcements. As soon as
the season opened, Aghrish, and his force of ‘‘free companions,” supported
by the Mughals, entered Giirjistan, carrying slaughter and devastation as far as
the gates of Taflis. They were soon encountered by the valiant Giirjis, and
the latter, having inflicted great slaughter upon A ghriish’s force, were about to
overpower it, when the main Mughal army arrived on the spot, just in time to
save it. Unable to withstand the combined forces, the Girjis had to beat a
retreat.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 997

In Safar, 620 प्र. [March, 1223, A.D.], Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahtidah]
advanced to Maraghah, which territory, at that time, was ruled by a female
sovereign—I have no space for much detail—who held her court in a fortress
named Rii-in-dujz, three farsakhs or leagues from Maraghah. Although she
was unprovided with the means of efficient resistance, and almost destitute of
troops, the people defended Maraghah for a week, when it was captured, and
the people massacred, and all their property destroyed or burnt.

After the capture of Maraghah, the Mughals moved towards Ardabil
[Ardibil of the maps], but, as the fame of its ruler, Mugaffar-ud-Din, Gargari,
for valour was sufficiently known, the Mughals gave up the idea of assailing it,
and they thought it advisable to retire. On the way back, intimation reached
Jabah [Yamah] and Swidiae [Sahiidah] of resistance in another quarter.

In the spring of this same year, 620 H., another attempt, but a feeble one, was
made to make a stand against the invaders. It must be remembered, however,
that Sultan Jaial-ud-Din had been overthrown on the banks of the Sind some
time—about a year or more—before this, that he was now in the tracts east of
that river—the present Panjab, and Sindh—and that there was no supreme
head to direct an efficient resistance : there was no combination. Jaméal-ud-
Din, Abiah, one of the confidential officers of the late Sultan, and who held
the Intendancy of ’Irak during his reign, assembled a number of followers,
whom the pro-Mughal historians, of course, style ‘‘rogues and vagabonds,”’ to
oppose the enemy; and the people of Hamadan also rose, slew the Mughal
Shahnah, or Intendant—not a ‘‘ governor”—located there, and openly threw
off the Mughal yoke. They then seized the Sayyid, ’Ala-ud-Daulah, before
referred to, for submitting to those infidels in the first place, and shut him up
in the fortress of Kurbat—e.S—or Gurbat. On this Jabah [Yamah]
re-entered Irak, and moved towards Hamadan again, against Jamal-ud-Din;
and all offers of submission [if made], on his part, were rejected, and Jamal-ud
Din was attacked, defeated, and slain. Hamadan, nevertheless, refused to
open its gates, and resisted bravely for three days, when the Fakih [the
Mubammadan Law-officer, a theologian], who was the Peshwa, or spiritual
guide of the Hamadanis, and the prime mover in all this resistance, was killed ;
and the Mughals succeeded in gaining an entrance into the place by means of
a secret passage, which this very Fakih had had excavated from his own house
to the hills adjoining the city. The usual scene of slaughter, plunder, and
devastation ensued.

After the capture of Hamadin, the Mughals set out towards Tabriz, at
which place, at that time, one of the chief ’Ulama, Shams-ud-Din, ’Usman,
the Tughrae, a man of great learning and wisdom, was residing—the Ata-Bak,
Yiiz-Bak, the ruler, having retired to Khite—who, in counsel with the chief
men, sent presents and supplies to the Mughals, and tendered submission, and,
among other things, a vessel filled with mercurial ointment, which, he thought,
“‘might be very valuable and useful to the Mughals in freeing their persons
from certain troublesome parasites, as they had come from a long distance.”
This so struck the Mughals, who met his agents with the presents at Mah-
mudabad, and at once proceeded to examine and count them, as a proof of his
good wishes and intentions for their welfare, that they then and there turned
back, and contented themselves with sending an Intendant to Tabriz, along
with the bearer of the presents, as Shams-ud-Din had requested.

Fhe Mughals now marched to Khiie, and 5817075, plundering, devastating,
and slaughtering, and then proceeded to Nakhjiian, Barda’, and Bailkan.

This last mentioned place was summoned to submit, and its people were

998 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

desirous of so doing, but, ina tumult which arose, the Mughal emissary was
killed, upon which the Mughals stormed the place, violated all the women,
and then made a general massacre of the inhabitants. After this feat of
brutality, they advanced to Ganjah, which submitted.

At Ganjah intimation reached the Mughal Ni-yins that an army of छण)
were on the way to attack them, and they moved from thence to meet them.
With 5000 men—probably double the number—Jabah [Yamah] placed hin-
self in ambush, while Swida&e [Sahiidah], with the main army, was sent
forward to oppose the Giirjis ; but they treated him so roughly that he had to’
beat a retreat in considerable disorder, pursued by the Girjis. The latter,
however, took to plundering the effects of the Mughals, and, while thus (ल्त.
pied, and their ranks broken, Jabah [Yamah] fell upon them unawares from
the ambuscade with his fresh troops ; and Swidae [Sahiidah] soon after suc-
ceeded in rallying his army, and also attacked the Girjis. They, in their tum,
had to retire with the loss, it is said, in Alff and Raugat-ug-Safa, of 30,000
men, but 3000 may be nearer the truth. The defeated Giirjis effected a junc-
tion at Taflis with Malik Da-td, their ruler, who had there assembled an
army to resist the invaders. The Mughals, however, had sufficient experience
of Girji prowess, for the difficult nature of their country was made the plea for
not further molesting them ; and the Mughal leaders turned aside towards the
territory of Shirwan. On reaching Shamakhi, they proceeded at once to fill
the ditch with everything they could get hold of, dead bodies of horses, asses,
bullocks, cows, and even sheep included, captured it, violated the females,
massacred its inhabitants, and destroyed the place, and Shirwan was reduced
to the same state of desolation as other countries they had passed through.

Having carried slaughter, devastation, and ruin—this is ‘‘an affatus of
architecture ” possibly—from the frontier of Maward-un-Nahr to the Kaukasas,
the Mughal leaders now prepared to carry out the plan of returning by the
Dasht-i-Khifchak into Mughalistan, and rejoining the Chingiz Khan, by
taking the route of the Dar-band or Barrier—the Bab-ul-Abwab, or Gate of
Gates, of the "Arabs, known to the classical writers as the Caspian Gates—but,
as they were totally unacquainted with the route, the Mughals had recourse to
treacherous stratagem, at which they were such adepts. They despatched an
agent to the Shirwan Shah, as the ruler of that territory was styled, who had
shut himself up in his strongest fortress, saying : ‘‘ We do not intend to molest
your territory any more ; send unto us here some persons that we may enter
into a compact together for the future, and then we will depart towards another
direction.” The Shirwan Shah was so delighted at the idea of getting rid of
these sanguinary barbarians that he was thrown off his guard completely, and
despatched ten persons of note to their camp. Arrived there, the Mughals at
once struck off the head of one of them in order to terrify the others, and told
them that, if they guided them to the Dar-band, and conducted them through
and beyond it safely, they should be set free, and, if not, that they should be
sent to join their comrade. These helpless creatures could do no other: 9
they guidedjthem ; and the Mughals, having passed beyond the Barer,
entered the territory of the Alin, a feat which no army had been able to
accomplish, without guides, since the time of Alexander.

The Alaniins assembled in great numbers to resist the invaders, and
combined ,with the tribes of Khifchak [respecting the name Khifchak see
mote at page'877, para. five] for that purpose, and occupied the route in
the front of the Mughals, prepared to resist their passage. The Mughals
perceived they were in great danger, and again had recourse toa treacherous

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 999

stratagem devised by Swidie [Sahidah]. They sent secretly to’ the Khif-
chak tribes, saying: ‘‘ You and we are both Turks [here is farther proof
respecting what I have said in my note on the descent of the Turks of
the i-maks of Tattéar and Mughal. See last para. of that note, page 900}
of one and the same stock, and all kinsmen together [and as they were
Nagiz, vul. ‘‘ Nogays,” this was really true, certain ethnological philosophers
notwithstanding. See note to page 888, para. two], while the Alanian
are aliens and foreigners. Let us enter into a covenant that we will be the
friends of each others’ friends and foes of each others’ foes, and, whatever you
may desire to have in the shape of money or goods, we will furnish you with,
provided you give no aid to the Alanian, and leave us to deal with them.”
Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahidah] accordingly sent many things from
among the plunder the Mughals had brought with them, and money likewise.
This induced the Khifchak tribes to withdraw, and they went away, upon
which the Mughals fell upon the Alanian, slaughtered great numbers of them,
ravaged their country, and got out of their difficulties. Then, according to
their usual custom, breaking the pledges they had given the Khifchaks, they
made a forced march, fell upon them unawares in their own territory, slew, and
dispersed them. The Khifchaks fled to the territury of the Riis [Russians],
while the Mughals halted in the kishlak or winter quarters of the Khifchaks,
which they appropriated, and therein they passed the winter of 620-21 H.
[A.D. 1223-24].

After being thus treated, the remainder of the Khifchak tribes sought aid
from the Riis—in the Rauzat-ug-Safa, and some other Histories, they are
always styled Urus— ~,!—and, between them, they raised a great army, and
set out to encounter the Mughals, who also advanced to meet them. The
Mughal leaders, finding the confederates too numerous for them to cope with,
again had recourse to stratagem, in order to separate them. When the Ris
and Khifchaks drew near, the Maghals, as though terrified of them, took to
flight ; and the Riis, taking heart, followed in pursuit of them for ten or twelve
successive days, when, finding the number of their pursuers gradually dimi-
nished, and that the horses of the remainder were quite knocked up, one morn-
ing, at dawn, the Mughals mounted quietly, and fell upon the Riis ; and, such
was the havoc they made among them, that ‘‘ the ground was made wet with
their blood.”

It is stated in Alff, that, in the beginning of the year 611 of the Rihlat =
621 H. [it certainly is not correct that the two Ni-yins rejoined the Chingiz Khan
early in 620 H., as will be proved farther on], the Mughals moved from the
country of the Khifchaks, and penetrated as far as the city of Siiddak [50l,~]
—by some Siidak [5!2,~]—on the shore of the same sea adjoining, and near
to [the territory of ?] Kustantiah [Constantinople ?], and gained possession of
Sitddak city, after which they entered the country of the Riis, as above
stated. |

PETIS DE LA Crotx gives another account, however—but does not quote
his authority—in which it is stated that the Alans were Tattars of Daghistan,
but, in the account above, the Mughals, who doubtless knew best, styled
them “‘aliens and strangers,” and did not by descent consider them, in any
way, connected with themselves, who were “ Turks.” ‘‘ They devastated their
country,” he says, ८८ 50 that the Mughals might not obtain anything, and this
enraged them so, that they surprised and ruined their chief city, Tarki, and
took Terki [Mosdok of the present day], the chief city of the Cherkassians,
who were in alliance with them, and also with the Kalimak Tartars” |

1000 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

According to that account, it was to these last—the Khifchaks of my autho-
rities—that the Mughals sent envoys claiming them as kinsmen, and that, by
favour of the Kal-imaks, they crossed the Atil or Wolga, and entered Khif-
chak. P. de la Croix has here brought in events which happened when Jiji
Khan subsequently went into Khifchak, mentioned farther on, from a totally
opposite direction, as the country of the Kal-imaks sufficiently indicates.

The pro-Mughal writers narrate that, after the defeat of the Riis, as I have
narrated above, Jabah [Yamah] and Swidie [Sahiidah] set out to rejoin the
Chingiz Khan, and, having done so, laid their spoils before him ; and that they
completed their expedition within the prescribed period of three years, in
which case they must have rejoined him before the fourth month of 620 H.
[ = June 1223 A.D.]. But what are the facts? Having passed the Atil, with
the consent of the Khifchak tribes, the season being far advanced, the Mughals
had to winter in the Daght-i-Khifchak. They appropriated the lands and
pastures of the Khifchak tribes, in consequence of which hostilities arose
between them and the Mughals ; but the latter, being unable to cope with the
former, had to act on the defensive, and send for aid to Jiji Khan, who, since
the disagreement with his brothers before Urganj of Khwarazm, had retired
into the Dasht-i-Khifchak, which had previously been assigned to him as his
fief. The Chingiz Khan did not move homewards from the Indus until the
spring of 620 H., and passed the summer at Buklan or Bughlan ; and they
only joined him in the summer of 621 H., when he was encamped near the
Sibiin, while others say they re-joined him only at Kalir-an. Jiji sent them
aid, the Khifchak tribes were now forced to submit ; and Jiji, at this juncture,
was summoned to join his father, who was on his return homewards, and he
therefore kept Jabah [Yamah] and Swidie [Sahiidah] in Khifchak during his
absence. They, by his command, reduced the Nagiz [श्ण]. Nogays], crossed
the river in their route, easily on the ice, reached what was afterwards known
as Haji-Tarkhan, the capital of the Nagiz, situated on an island in the Atil
or Wolga, reduced it, and compelled the Nagiz to submit, after a war of six
months, to the Mughal yoke. Jiji was directed to return to the Dasbt-i-
Khifchak in the autumn of 621 H. [A.D. 1224], after the great Auriltac, sub-
sequent to which Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahiidah] set out for the भावी
of the Chingiz Khan, and, in due course, joined him during the summer of
621 H., as stated farther on.

Now considering that the two Nii-yins and their force wintered in the
kishlak of the Khifchak tribes, during the winter of 620-21 प्त. [= A.D.
1223—24], and are supposed to have rejoined the ५2 of the Chingiz Khin
‘‘ early in that year,” the idea of those, originally 30,000 horse, after nearly
three years campaigning, during which they must have lost a good many of
their number from sickness and fatigue, without allowing for the killed and
wounded [P. de la Croix, quoting “ Fadlallah,” as he styles the ‘‘great
Raschid,” says that ‘‘ Hubbe and Suida’”’ had lost 10,000 men, and the
Mughal ruler had sent off a reinforcement of 20,000 to join them in Mazan-
daran, when Tili was sent against Nishapir in 618 H.], ^^ dividing into two
sections ” after reaching the Dasht-i-Khifchak, and partially destroying ‘‘ Had-
shi Tarkan ’’—‘‘twisted” into Astrakhan by Europeans—and one body going
back from thence into the ‘‘ Krimea,” and plundering the Genoese city of
‘* Sudak,” then ‘‘rejoining their brethren on the Don,” and returning by way
of ‘* Precop,” as stated in ‘‘ Mongols Proper’ on the authority, apparently, of
Karamzin and Wolff, respecting’ this Russian campaign [pp. 94 and 95] is, as
regards the expedition under Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahiidah], at this

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. rool

ACCOUNT OF THE CROSSING OF THE RIVER JIHUN BY
THE TROOPS OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN TOWARDS KHU-
RASAN.?

After the Ni-in, Yamah, and the Bahadur Sahidah,
with 60,000 horse, passed through Khurdsan, and pro-
ceeded towards ‘Irak, disturbance and tumult arose in
Khurasan, and sedition manifested itself. Each one of the
Maliks, in accordance with the commands of Sultan Mu-
hammad, was in some part or other, and they put the for-

period, as probable as that famous march which the ‘‘Gurkhan” made
‘*round the Caspian,” and which must have occurred at the same time, and
much in the same manner, as when the Kara Khitae ‘‘traversed Khurasan and
the wastes of Central Asia, and found their way into Kerman without a hint
from the Persian historians.’”” What Jabah [Yamah] and Swidie [Sahiidah]
did was subsequent, while Jiiji was absent at the £uriltae just referred to.

The author of ‘‘ Mongols Proper” appears to have greatly confused events,
or his foreign translations have led him astray, for at p. 94, referring to the
raid of ‘‘Chepé,” and ‘‘ Subutae,”’ we are told that Georgia was then governed
by Ruzudan, daughter of the celebrated ‘‘ Queen Thamar,” and was overrun
by the Mughals ; and, at p. 132, under ‘‘ Ogotai,” that, in 1235 [= 633-34 H.],
the “ Mongols” entered ‘‘ Zré:/,” and in the following year ‘‘ quitted the
plain of Mughan ”—it was ‘‘ the rich plain of Mogan,” at p. 93—on the Cas-
pian, and sacked most of the towns of Albania, Georgia, and Great Armenia,
the Queen Roussudan [This is the Ruzudan of p. 94, and Rusutan of p. 167.
Rii-in-dujg, was the name of the fortress in which the female ruler of Maraghah
held her court, mentioned in para. 1, p. 997, of note.], taking refuge in the
fortress of ‘‘Ousaneth = of p. 132, but ^" Usaneth” of p. 167, etc. These
events all refer to one and the same period of time.

One must be credulous indeed to believe that a force, which at the outset
only numbered 30,000 horse, or even double the number, as our author states,
could have performed these exploits. The very fact of the amount of plunder
brought along with them indicates a goodly number of beasts of burden or vehicles
of some sort, unless their plunder was packed in a very small compass indeed,
and must have hampered them in their Krimean journey, and on the Don, or a
large portion of their small force must have been left in some secure position to
guard it. Therefore, there can be no doubt but that this original force was greatly
augmented by reinforcements of Mughals, and fresh recruits ; and the proba-
bility is, that a number of the Turk and Tattar soldiery, which were dispersed
throughout the Sulfan’s dominions without a head, and some of those taken at
the capture of cities and fortresses, must have been taken into pay or forced to
serve, and this enabled the two Ni-yins to bring their bloody raid to a successful
termination.

9 The great fault of our author here is that he does not give the events in
order as they happened, which makes it somewhat difficult to follow him in
this, otherwise, most interesting portion of his History, and which later his-
torians, especially the pro-Mughal ones, and such writers as D’Ohsson and
others, seem to have been wholly unacquainted with.

3 9

1002 | THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

tresses in repair, and surrounded the cities with ditches, and
caused preparations to be made for war, and to defend the
fortresses as far as lay in their power; for every part was
entrusted, by the Sultan, to the charge of some Malik, who
had been [previously] appointed thereunto.

The fortress of Tirmid' the Sultan entrusted to the
[contingent] troops of Sistan, the chief of whom was the
Amir, Zangi-i-Abi-Hafs; and the Sarhang [standard-
bearer]? Sam, and the Pahlawan [champion], Arsiah, he
despatched to the fortress of Walkh‘ of Tukhiristan, the
length and breadth of which fortress is about four farsangs
[leagues]. The fortress of Bamian he gave to Amir ’Umr,
the Bawardi; and likewise commanded Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-
Din, Muhammad, son of ’Ali-i-Khar-post [the ass-skinned],
the Ghiri, to proceed from Burshor [Purshor—Peshawar ?*]
for the purpose of securing the city of Ghaznin* and to
defend that territory. To Malik Husim-ud-Din, Husain‘-
i--Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-Zarrad, who was in the fort and town
of 5211821 ° of (गप्रा, and Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain son
of ’Ali-i-Abi-’Ali,” he gave orders to garrison and put in

1 Tirmid or Tirmiz : two modes of writing this name, and both correct.

2 See note 7, page 103.

ॐ But few copies of the text have this name at all, and two copies have
respectively a variation of it—Arsibah and Arsibah.

4 A different place altogether from Balkh, for which it must not be
mistaken. See page 1024.

५ It should not be lost sight of that Peshawar is a modern name. Up to the
time of Akbar it was styled Bagram. The old capital of the province was
Tahkal, west of the present city. Excavations are being made there at pre-
sent, I understand, and I have no doubt but that some important archzological
discoveries will be made there.

¢ The Bodleian and Ro. As. Soc. ASS. have ‘‘and Dikii” after Ghaznin,
which proves how much their copyists knew of geography, or their carelessness,
or they must have had very imperfect 4/S.S. to copy from.

7 In some copies Hasan. Husain-i-’Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-Zarrad, is the
same person as is mentioned at pages 394 and 417, who was set up as ruler
over Firiz-koh, after the death of Sultan’ Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, and just previous
to the termination of the Ghiri dynasty. He is also styled Sipah Salar.

8 Sangah is the capital of Mandesh. See page 340.

9 The same person as mentioned at pages 391, 410, and 416, and several
times in the account of the Shamsiah Sultans. Here is another proof, were
any wanting, of an izdfaf being used for son in the very same sentence with
bin. Abi-’Ali was entitled Shuja’-ud-Din, and he was the son of ’Izz-ud-Din,
Al-Husain, mentioned at page 338, and he was the father of ’Ala-ud-Din,
Muhammad, otherwise Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl of Ghiir, and the last of its

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1003

order the fortresses of the territory of Ghiir, and to use
their utmost endeavours in the defence of that country.
The Malik-ul-Kuttab [chief of secretaries], the Ikhtiyar-
ul-Mulk, Daulat Yar-i-Tughra-i [the engrosser of the
Tughra or imperial signature], he despatched to the for-
tress of KaAliiin, and directed that the two famous Pah-
lawans [champions] of Khurasan, whom they were wont
to call the sons of the Sozan-gar,' should also proceed
thither. Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Jizjani,?
was located in the city of Hirat, and the fortress of Fiwar
was entrusted to the charge of the Pahlawan, Asil-ud-Din,
the Nishapiri, the son-in-law of the Pahlawan, Mubarak,
the Kurd. The fort of Nasir Koh of Tal-kan was con-
ferred upon the confidential retainers of Malik Shams-ud-
Din-i- Utsuz, the Hajib, and the fortress of Rang of
Guzarwan was made over to the vassals of Ulugh Khan-
i-Abi-Muhammad.?_ The fortresses of Gharjistan were as-
signed to Sheran, the Amid [chief of the tribe] of the
Abii Sahlan,‘ and those of Ghiir were entrusted to the

Sultans, and this Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, was the son of ’Ali, brother of the
Pearl of Ghiir.

1 Sojg~—Sozan-gar. One set of copies of the text, which almost always
agree, in undoubted errors particularly, as I have several times mentioned
before, all have eyj;9.—Yiiz-Bak, which is Turkish, while these chiefs were
all Tajziks. This is a specimen how copyists make errors, for yj» is merely
a careless error for ती) words are more alike in 44S. than in type.
The meaning of sosan-gar literally is a needle-maker, but that evidently is not
the meaning here, but the worker of a description of quilting for covering or
spreading over beds or the like, in which flowers of various kinds are worked
of silk and thread, termed sozani.

? Written Jiirjani in nearly every copy of the text, but Jiizjani is correct
here. The parts about Tiilak formed what is called the Jiizjanat, or the two
Jizjans of the ’Arab writers, but Giizgan of the Tajziks. See note 7, page
321, para. II.

9 The same personages as are referred to at pages 266, 281, 399, and 414.

* One of the ’Arab tribes of which several, or a portion of several, settled in
these parts of Asia, towards the Jibiin, at the time of the ’Arab conquest, and
some of whom remain to this day.

The late Mr. W. H. Blochmann, M.A., in his criticisms on my account of
the rulers of Lakhanawati, contained in his (° Contributions to the Geography
and History of Bengal,” JOURNAL BENGAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, Vol. XLIV.,
page 280, note f, asserted that Sherdn by itself is not a Muhammadan name,
and objected to my ‘ separating the name of the father of the VIth ruler of
Lakhanawati [page 573] from that of his sons.’ Here isa proof that Sheran
is ० name by itself, and a Mubammadan name into the bargain. See also my

Reply in the same JOURNAL, Part I., No. III., for 1876.

382

1004 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Maliks of (गता. The city of Firiz-koh was made over to
Malik Mubariz-ud- Din,' the Sabzwari,and the fort Tilak was
placed under the charge of the Amir, Habashi-i-Nezah-war®
[expert at the lance]; and, in every fortress and city, the
Sultan located one of the distinguished Maliks among the
Turks and Tajziks.

When Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, fled towards
Mazandaran, and the armies of Islam became dispersed
and disorganized, the Chingiz Khan had taken complete
possession of the territory of Samrkand, and had despatched
a body of horse’ in pursuit of the Sultan; and other armies
were despatched into various parts of Khurasan.® Arsalan
Khan of Kaialik,? who was a Musalman, and had [under
him] about 6000 [horse-] men, all Musalmans and ’Ajamis,
along with Tilan, the Juzbi, and a Mughal force, was sent
against the fortress of Walkh of Tukharistan, whilst the
Chingiz Khan, himself, with the centre [main-body] of his
host, advanced from Samrkand to the foot of the walls of
the fortress of Tirmid, and attacked 1४." After some days,

5 He is the chief who so gallantly defended Hiraét many months from the
second attack of the Mughals, and perished in its defence.

6 He was famed for his skill at the lance or spear, his favourite weapon,
hence his appellation—the lance or spear-carrying, or the skilled at the lance
or spear. See page 1059.

7 An army of 60,000 horse, as mentioned at page 987.

४ Including an army into Khwarazm, the operations against the capital of
which are narrated under the notice of Tiisbi, as पौ Khan’s name is also
written.

® A Karligh Turk of the same tribe as Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karligh
[Maj.-Gen. A. Cunningham’s Indo-Scythian], only the former belonged to
those who continued in their old country, while the latter belonged to those
who emigrated to the southwards. See note >, pages 374-5.

1 Having passed the winter of 617 H. at Samrkand—the winter of 1220 A.D.—
the Chingiz Khan, as soon as spring drew near, in the month of Zi-Hijjah, the
last month of 617 H., and after he had despatched his three sons into Khwa-
razm, moved, with the bulk of his host, towards the Jibiin. He first reached
Nakhshab ; and, in the pasture-lands in that neighbourhood, remained during
the summer, in order to fatten his horses, and, probably, until such time as the
water should be low enough to enable him to cross the Jibiin after destroying
Tirmid, which was the next point of attack. When the summer came to an
end, he set out with his main army by way of Timur Kala’h—from whence he
despatched his son Tili, at the head of a great army against the cities and
fortresses of Khurasan—towards Tirmid. On drawing near it he despatched
an agent to summon it to submit, and threatening the utmost severity in case
of non-compliance. The people within, however, placing faith in the strength
of their walls—the waters of the Jihin partly surrounded the fortress—refused

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1005

during which the Musalmans of Tirmid had fought many
battles, and had sent great numbers of the Mughals to
hell, and many Musalmans had been martyred and made
captive, the people of Tirmid were reduced to helplessness ’
by the stones of [discharged from] the catapults of those
accursed ones, and they abandoned the place; and that
fortress fell into the hands of the Mughals, who martyred
the whole of the inhabitants.

From thence [Tirmid] the Chingiz Khan despatched
bodies of Mughal troops down towards Khurasan, Ghir,
and Ghaznin ; and the passage downwards of every army
of Mughals which he sent towards Khurdsan and Ghir
used to be by the fortress of Nagir Koh of Tal-kan.’
The garrison used to come down from Nasir Koh, and
fall upon the troops and followers of the Mughal armies,
and retake captives‘ and cattle, and despatch those ac-
cursed ones to hell. These gallant exploits against the

to do so, and prepared for a vigorous defence. Catapults were used on cither
side, and great energy was displayed by besiegers and besieged, but, on the
tenth day—Alfi and some others say the fifteenth—the Mughals, having
succeeded in destroying the defences, gained possession of the place by assault.
It is very probable that our author’s account of the city having been evacuated
is correct.

Under pretence of selecting people for distribution, as usual, the inhabitants
were driven out into the open country without the city, and all, both old and
young, male and female, were massacred. An aged female whom they were
in the act of slaying on this occasion cried out, ‘‘Do not slay me until I shall
have given up to you a great pearl.” On making inquiry subsequently, they
found she meant that she had swallowed—in the figurative language of the
original—‘‘ one of great value, like an oyster-shell, and like a pearl oyster-
shell they treated her: they opened her bowels and found it ; and, after that,
it was usual with them to treat their prisoners in this way, in hopes of finding
jewels.”

After this bloody feat, the Chingiz Khan, in Zi-Hijjah of 617 H.—February,
1221 A.D. [according to the pro-Mughal writers, but three months after
according to our author—see page 1008—who was close by at the time, and
whose statement is preferable here, and at that page of our author’s account
it will be found], crossed the ख by the Tirmid ferry. Alfi says in the
beginning of 618 H., which is much the same, since Zi-Hijjah is the last
month of the Musalman year.

9 Some copies have which signifies a fissure or rent, particularly in the
ground; some j which is the shortened form of १९४ which cannot be
right ; and others, the oldest, j»'« as translated above. The letters ४ were
left out by some copyists, hence the error.

> In some copies, Nasr Koh. See note 7, page 1009.

+ The Printed Text has ‘‘camels and cattle -- for y= |—but camels
come under the head of cattle I believe.

1006 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

infidels by the Tal-kanis having become frequent, a nume-
rous force from the main body of the Mughal host was
sent against the fortress of Nasir Koh, and it invested that
stronghold completely, and fighting began. Uklan,* the
Juzbi, and Sa’di, the Juzbi, together with the son-in-law of
the Chingiz Khan, which accursed one’s name was Fiki,’
the Ni-in, and who had [under them] 45,000 horse, were
likewise despatched to make inroads into various parts of
Ghir and Khurasan. The whole of the cattle and flocks
that were around about the cities, towns, kasrs, and villages
of Khurasan, Ghir, and the Garm-sir, fell into the hands of
the Mughal forces ; and the country as far as the gate of
Ghaznin, the territories of Tukharistan,and the Garm-sir, was
ravaged, and the greater part of the Musalman inhabitants
were martyred and made captive. During this same year,
617 H., for a period of eight months, the Mughal troops
continued to carry their devastations into different parts ;’
and, at this period, the writer of this TABAKAT, Minh§j-i-
Saraj, was in the fortress of Tilak, and the writer’s brother
was in the city and fortress of Firiiz-koh. In this year
likewise, a Mughal army came before the fort of Astiah of
Ghir, and for the space of eleven days vigorously attacked
it. Within this fortress was an Antir and feudatory, the
Sipah-Salar [Leader of Troops], Taj-ud-Din, Habashi;.-i-
"Abd-ul-Malik,’ Sar-i-Zarrad. He was a great Malik with
ample resources, but, as the decree of destiny had come, he
entered into an accommodation with the Mughals, and went
unto them. They took him to the presence of the Chingiz
Khan, and he bestowed upon him the title of Khusrau'

$ In a few copies Ughlan, which is also correct, ई and &4 being inter-
changeable.

¢ The same as mentioned at page 287, and farther on. The Chingiz Khan
had many sons-in-law.

7 The pro-Mughal historians either did not know of these different expedi-
tions or have concealed them because the Mughals were so often beaten.
It is very significant to find that they are not to be found २/८ any other work
whatever save the present one, and hence, hitherto, this ^^ honey ” has not been
utilized.

8 Not an Ethiopian: it is a by-name here. See note >, page 368.

9 He is the brother of Malik Husim-ud-Din, Husain-i-’Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-
i-Zarrad, mentioned at page 417. See also pages 394 and 1002.

1 A king, a prince, a just leader, any sovereign of pomp and magnificence.

This, very probably, is the person whom the pro-Mughal writers mistake for
Mahk Khan of Hirat. Sce note 3, page 987, para. 4.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1007

[Prince] of Ghir, showed him great honour, and sent him
back again in order that he might, by means of accommo-
dation, cause the other strongholds to be given up. On
his coming back again, after the Chingiz Khan defeated
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, Khwarazm Shah, on the
banks of the river Sind, Taj-ud-Din, Habashi-i-’Abd-ul-
Malik, Sar-i-Zarrad, deserted the Mughals, and engaged in
battle with them, and attained the reward of martyrdom.
In this same year likewise, the army of Mughals under
the Juzbi, Uklan, appeared before the gate of the city of
Firiiz-koh, and attacked it with great ardour for the space
of twenty-one days, but did not succeed in getting posses-
sion of it, and they withdrew baffled in their attempt.
When the winter season drew near, and the snow began to
fall upon the mountains’ of Ghir, the Mughal forces turned
their faces from Khurasan towards Mawara-un-Nahr. The
number of the Mughal army which was in Ghir, Mughals
and renegades included, was about 20,000 horse,® and the
route of that force lay by the foot of the fortress of Tilak,
and, for a period of eight months,‘ a force from that army
used to carry their raids up to the foot [of the walls] of
that fortress, and the veteran warriors of that fort—and
this votary, Minhaj-i-Saraj, was among those holy-warriors
—the Almighty’s mercy be upon them !—used to join
issue with those infidels, in such wise that it used to be
impossible for the infidels to come near the fort ; and at
times during that eight months, all the day long, the Mughal
troops continued to prowl around the foot of the fortress.
Trustworthy persons related that there were so many
Musalman captives in the hands of the Mughal infidels,
that they had selected, for the Chingiz Khan specially,
12,000 young virgins, who followed [the troops] on foot.

2 The Printed Text, and a few of the more modern J/S. copies, have ly
—peoples, families, etc., instead of JL»—mountains.

9 This may have been a part of Arsalan Khan’s force, or of Fikii’s, or,
Possibly, a separate force altogether.

4 One of the best and oldest copies of the text has eight days here instead of
eight months, while another, immediately after the word month, has ‘‘ days ”
also, The sequel proves that in the first case months are correct, and days
after, as rendered above. The Mughals and their Musalman Turkish allies
remained in those parts the whole period, from the end of one wiuter to the
commencement of the next, during which time, for days together, they used to
prowl about Tilak, awaiting an opportunity of attacking or surprising it.

1008 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The Almighty deliver them out of their hands, and, in His
wrath, take vengeance upon the infidels, and annihilate
them |

ACCOUNT OF THE PASSAGE OF THE RIVER JIHUN BY THE
CHINGIZ KHAN.

When the month of Rabr’-ul- Awwal of the year 618 H.
came round, the Mughal hosts, a second time, were des-
patched into different parts of Khurasan, Ghir, and Ghar-
jistin ; and, as the route of the Mughal armies used to
be before the fortress of Nasir Koh of Talkan,' the holy-

$ I have now come to a point where a very great and serious blunder has
been made by some of the writers, who, under the I]-Khanian—the Mughal
sovereigns of Persia—the descendants of the Chingiz Khan, wrote their
general histories, in which the conquests of the Mughals are given in con-
siderable detail, and, consequently, other historians who follow them have
generally repeated this grave error, and the fact of its being undoubtedly such
I shall, I believe, fully demonstrate. It must cause a rectification of maps,
and will overturn some very pretty geographical theories recently put forth in
some elaborately illustrated and printed books, which theories hang upon the
error in question.

Taking some of my notes from the pro-Mughal writers to illustrate the
inroad of the Saljiiks, and the life of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, I have, myself,
been led into a slight error, at pages 94 and 130, of supposing all three places
to be written as I found them, and as the authors themselves appeared to
have imagined, or the scribes for them, in the same way, and was partly Jed
away by Ouseley’s translation of Ibn-Haukal, but even then had my doubts
on the point, at pages 290, 376, 398, 399, and other places ; however, after
examining the MASALIK WA MAMALIK, I found that there was a great differ-
ence between the places, and corrected it accordingly, but I little imagined
what these grave mistakes on the part of the pro-Mughal writers would lead
to here, and what blunders they would commit in consequence.

The error is that of entirely ignoring the existence of Tal-kan—,,\sb—of
Khurasan, and mistaking Tae-kan—,'\&\b—of Tukhiaristan, east of Kunduz,
for it. The latter place figures in our modern maps, including Col. J. T.
Walker’s last, under the incorrect name of Talikhan, but the word has no kh
in it, and never had.

This error on the part of these Muhammadan historians is the more to be
wondered at, because some of them describe the situation of Tal-kan sufh-
ciently correctly to prove that it is the very place referred to above by our
author, but in no other are such details given. The author of the Jami’-ut-
Tawarikh—the earliest of the pro-Mughal writers referred to—says Tal-
kan was an exceedingly strong place, seven days’ journey from Balkh. The
Fanakati, who is very brief, says the Chingiz Khan proceeded from Balkb
to the fort of Tae-ghan [k and gh being interchangeable] and captured it. In
the Rauzat-us-Safa and Habib-us-Siyar, it is ‘‘ Tal-kan, situated on a lofty
hill called Koh-i-Nukrah ’—the Mountain or Hill of Silver, after a silver

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1009

warriors of that fortress used to display valour and self-
devotion. This circumstance coming constantly to the
hearing of the Chingiz Khan, and the forces sent against
that stronghold being unable to gain possession of it, and
it being impossible to capture it, he crossed the Jihin for
the purpose of taking it,° and pitched his camp on the
Pushtah [mound] of Nu’man and in the Bayaban [unculti-
vated plain] of Ka’b’ which is between Talkan and Balkh.

¢ He did not proceed against it at first, in person, but, subsequently, on
finding the troops he had detached for the purpose could not capture the
fortress, as explained a little farther on.

१ To the south of what appears in Col. J. T. Walker’s map as ‘‘ Dasht-i-
Chul,” both words, dasht and chil, being precisely of the same meaning—a
desert, plain, wilderness, uninhabited tract, etc. The Pusktah-i-Nu’man lay
in about Lat. 36° 20’, Long. 64° 40’.

mine—and that it was ‘‘situated detween Marw and Balkh,” and, in this, the
Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir, and the Tarikh-i-Alfi agree. The Tarikh-i-Guzidah
also gives the name and situation correctly.

This may also be quite correct ; but क pei or » might also, in AZSS., be
mistaken for 55s,i3 and I am inclined to think that 11,45 is a mistake for the
other, as our author was not likely to pass over such a matter as silver-mines
without referring to it.

The older historians and geographers describe both places most distinctly.
Baihaki says ‘‘Sultan Mas’iid on the way from Balkh to Sarakhs reached
Tal-kin ;’ and that monarch’s defeat by the Saljiiks occurred in that vicinity.
Ibn-Haukal says 7ae-kan of Tukharistan is seven days’ journey from Badakh-
shin, while ‘‘ 7a/-4d” of Kburasin is three stages, i.e. three days’ journey
from Marw-ar-Riid”’ [now, Murgh-ab], and the same distance from Shiwar-
ghan. Abii-l-Fida says ‘‘the city of Tal-kan, once a flourishing place, did
not exist at this period, but merely a citadel built on Nukrah Koh by a prince
of Tukharistan, on account of a silver mine which it enclosed.” Ibn-al-Wardi
[Hylander : Lunde, 1823] says :—‘‘ ७५५५] [at-Tal-kan] Urbs in Chorasan vel
Irak el Ajem (in utraque enim regione urbes ejus nominis sitz).” There was
another place so called in ’Irak-i-’Ajam, as Ibn-al-Wardi says. THE MASALIK
wa MAMALIK, a work of undoubted authority, says, ‘‘ From Balkh to Shiwar-
ghan is three marhalak or stages, and, from the latter place to Tal-kan, three
stages, and from Tal-kain to Marw-ar-Rid three stages. Tal-kan lies among
mountains, and has running water and gardens. A river runs between it and
Marw-ar-Riid which is crossed by a bridge.” It is often mentioned in con-
nexion with Faryab and Marw-ar-Rid. See page 378. In another place
it is said ^" 72८42 [which has been mistaken for Tal-kan] is the largest city
of Tukharistan, which is a district of Balkh, and is situated in a plain near
hills, and is watered by a considerable river.” In the various maps also in
that work the position of Tal-kan is plainly indicated. If we turn to Woop’s
work, ९4 Journey to the Source of the Oxus,” new ed., pages 153 to 157,
we shall find his description agree with what is stated in the MASALIK-wa-
MAMALIK respecting its situation, and it proves, beyond a doubt, from the

1010 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

When the affairs of the people of the fortress of Nasir
Koh came to a crisis, they resigned their hearts to martyr-

physical nature of the country around, that, what he—led away by the mode
of writing the name, as given by Elphinstone, and others—calls Talikhan and
Taulikhaun was not the place invested and destroyed by the Mughals. It isa
place distant from any hills, and not so situated that ‘‘ every Mughal army
passing to and fro between Khurasan and Ghir must, necessarily, pass at the
foot of the fortress,” as our author says. To crown the whole, at page 147,
he mentions ‘‘ Tae-kan of Kunduz,” in connexion with Walwialij, as a wholly
different place.

Ibn-Khalkan, too, notices two Tal-kans—Tal-kan of Khurasan, and Tal-
kin of Kazwin, but not Tae-kan of Tukharistan; and, after describing the
vowel points, says : ‘* Tal-kan is the name of two cities, one in Khurasan, and
the other a dependency of Kazwin, and contiguous to the fortress of Ala-mit.”

ELPHINSTONE appears to have known nothing of Tal-kan of Khurasan,
and refers to Tae-kan of Kunduz, as Taulikhaun. Col. Yule, in his ‘‘ Essay
on the Geography, etc. of the Oxus,” in the second edition of Capt. Wood’s
५५ Journey,” p. xxvi, refers to both places by one and the same name—
‘‘Talikan on the Murghab,” and ‘‘ Talikan, on the borders of Badakshan,”
but, at p. xxxi. he mentions ‘‘the more open country below, 7déhkdn (cr
Talikan), and Balkh,” etc. ; and, at p. xxxiii, refers again to Talikan, cast of
Balkh, as the fortress invested by ‘‘ Chinghiz,” which, of course, is incorrect.
Tae-kan of Badakhshan again is often mentioned in that excellent work the
Asar-ul-Bilad. As to the Hayatilah see note 8, page 423.

ELuioT (Vol. II. p. 578) falls into the same errors as others. He says
«° Tdélikin—a city of Zukhdristén between Balkh and Merv, three days’
journey from the latter. There is another town of the same name east of
Kunduz. The 7dlikdn of Tukhdristdn is the one most frequently mentioned,”
etc. It is however precisely the reverse, and Tukharistan was situated cast
of Balkh, while Marw is west, in Khurasin.. Tal-kan had ceased to be
known as ‘‘a city”’ or town prior to the time of the Chingiz Khan.

As the clearing up of this terrible error is necessary, I will show how such
like mistakes are brought about. Pétis de la Croix’s ‘‘ History oF GEN-
GHIZCAN THE GREAT,” which is one of the cabbage gardens to which manu-
facturers of histories have recourse for padding, at page 283, says, that Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din dwelt many weeks in the city of Bale, where he got together some
troops, and this it was that “ displeased Genghiscan against its people.” This
is a blunder, and his own. Jalal-ud-Din was never at Balkh at this period:
०५81८ ° is an error for Ghaznin. He gives no authority for his statement in
the margin, but, soon after, begins to quote ‘‘ Abulfarag,” and ^" Mirconde.”
After mixing up a deal of his own with a little from oriental writers, he says,
at page 286, quoting “ Fadlallah” as well as ‘‘ Abulfarag,” —‘‘ After the Mogul
Emperor had thus reduced the city of Bale to his obedience, he sent detach-
ments out of his army to कद [this is incorrect : Ghir and those parts are
referred to by the writers he quotes], and ersia, aud left a considerable part
of his troops in Zransoxiana to keep it in awe, whilst he went to Zocarestan,
to besiege the city of Zalcan (sic), which was but seven days’ journey from
Bale [here he has mixed up his own remarks], and was esteemed the strongest
city in all Asia [his own] for its situation, it being built on a very steep moun-
tain [which Tae-kan of Tukhiaristan is not] called Mocreceuh . . . whilst 7
went to execute his father’s commands, Genghizcan planted the engines befere

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1०

dom, and washed their hands of all hope of life. Three
months prior to the occurrence of the capture of the for-
tress, and their attainment of the glory of martyrdom, the
whole of them, by mutual consent, donned deep blue
[mourning] garments, and used to repair daily to the great
masjid of the fortress, and would repeat the whole Kur’an,
and condole and mourn with each other ; and, after doing
all this, they used to pronounce benediction on and bid
farewell to each other, and assume their arms, and engage
in holy-warfare with the infidels, and despatch many of the

Mughals to hell, and some among themselves would attain
martyrdom.

On the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, becoming aware of

Talcan (sic), etc. .... he caused to be made, with all speed, a great number
of grappling-irons, long nails, hooks, ladders, and ropes, to ascend the Rock
[this cannot possibly be applied to Tae-kan of Kunduz or Tukhiristan, lying
in a plain] . . . animated by the remembrance of the fatigues they had
suffered for seven months past, which time the siege lasted,” etc. Zalcan was
situated between Merou and Balc [here he is quite right] and dependent on
Tocaristan [this is his own, and is wrong]... . The first ety of this name
was not standing in the time of Genghizcan, and there was nothing left but the
Citadel, which a prince of Tocarestan [one of the Shansabani rulers of Tukkh-
dristin and Bamian] had caused to be built on the top of the mountain
Nocrecouh, so called because of the mines of silver which it enclosed,” etc. From
the above extract it will be perceived how such errors have been brought about.
Of modern writers, I find THOMAS is the most correct as to the position of
Tal-kan, but he spells the word incorrectly—‘‘ Talakan ” [‘‘ Fournal Ro. As.
Soc.,” vol. xvii. p. 188, ^“ On the coins of the Kings of Ghazni”); and again,
at page 208 :—‘‘ This is the Talakan in Juzjan [Jawzjan?], which must not be
confounded with the city of the same name or nearly similar name in Tokhdristin,
situated to the eastward of Kunduz . . . The second city is discriminated in
many of the early geographical authorities, by the independent orthography
of yall” The ’Arabic Jl is not however always, or even often, prefixed
to the name except in ’Arabic books. The advantageous position for a per-
manent camp chosen by the Chingiz Khan at the Pushtah-i-Nu’man can be
seen at a glance on looking at a good map, but this position did not secure it
from an attack from the fortress of Ashiyar of Gharjistin, mentioned at page
1072, when the Chingiz Khan set out towards Ghaznin in pursuit of Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din, after the latter had repeatedly overthrown the Mughal forces
opposed to him. The fact of this attack from Ashiyar also still further tends
to prove the position of the great camp mentioned farther on, and, con-
sequently, the mistaking of Tal-kan, of Khurasan for Tae-kan of Kunduz east
of Balkh involves a d/under of only about 360 miles too far tothe east. Tal-kan
is,undoubtedly, the place visited by the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, under
the name of ‘‘ Ta-la-kien’”’ on the confines of ^ Po-la-si” [not ^^ Persia,” for
Firs, which is anglicized Persia, only applies to a province, and not to Iran],
and lay on the great caravan route between Turkistan, Bukhara, by Tirmid
and Balkh, to Hirat and Khurasin. See also pages 378 and 398.

1012 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the severity of the conflict carried on by these warriors of
the faith, he moved from the Pushtah of Nu’man against
the fortress in person, and the attack commenced. On
one side of the fortress, where the upper gateway was
situated, they had excavated a ditch in the rock, and the
Mughals, with stones from their catapults, battered down
the bastion at that point, and filled in the ditch, and
effected a breach to the extent of about a hundred ells.’
Still the Mughal forces were unable to take the fort; but
the Chingiz Khan, through excessive rage, swore his ac-
customed oath that he would take that fortress on horse-
back.’ For a period of fifteen days more fighting was
carried on, until an even passage was made,' so that the
capture of the fort of Nasir Koh might be effected.

When the Mughal cavalry charged into the fortress, 500
men of the defenders of the place, tried warriors, formed in
a compact body, and sallied forth from the gateway of the
Koh-i-Janinah ? [Janinah mountain] of Talkan, and threw
themselves upon the Mughal army, broke through its
ranks, and cut their way out. As mountains and ravines
were close by, some of them attained martyrdom, but the
greater number escaped in safety.’

The Chingiz Khan destroyed that fortress, and caused
the whole of [the rest of] the inhabitants * to be martyred.
May God reward them!

ACCOUNT OF THE COMING OF SULTAN JALAL-UD-DIN,
MANG-BARNI, SON OF SULTAN MUHAMMAD, KHWA-
RAZM SHAH, TO GHAZNIN, AND THE EVENTS THAT
BEFELL HIM THERE.

Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, sent his commands

४ When ells occur, the English ell is referred to.

9 He had to wait for Tuli Khan, whom he had ordered to rejoin him with
his forces from Hirat, before he could succeed in taking the place, according
to the Rauzat-us-Safa, Habib-us-Siyar, and some others.

1 By filling the ditch and levelling the walls.

2 That is to say, the gateway facing the Janinah—in some copies, Janiah—
mountain.

3 The pro-Mughal writers say that it was taken after seven months, that
not a soul was left alive within it, and that it was razed to the ground. If
any place was entitled to be named Mau-baligh it was this.

4 Great fortresses, often miles in circumference, with towns within their
walls. What they were may be seen from the sketches of Captain Hart, Dr.
Atkinson, and in Sale’s ‘* Falal-abad.”

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1013

to Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of ’Ali-i-Khar-
post * [the ass-skinned], the Ghiiri, a man of experience, a
valiant warrior, and of considerable firmness, who, some
time previously, for a period of ten [two ?] years, had held
out the fortress of Nasir Koh of Talkan, against the forces
of Khwarazm 31121," and who, in Ghir and Khurdsan, had,
consequently, become famed and renowned, and whose line
was of the great Maliks of (त्ता, to set out from Burshor’
[Purshor—Peshawar ?], which was his fief, and proceed to
Ghaznin ; and, when he arrived there, the forces of Islam
turned their faces towards him. In the capital city of
Ghaznin, great numbers of troops assembled, in such wise,
that about 130,000 horse, all brave soldiers and completely
armed, were mustered with the intention of undertaking
this important enterprise, that. he should organize the
army, and suddenly fall upon the forces of the Chingiz
Khan who was then encamped at the Pushtah *-i-Nu’man,
and [endeavour to] overcome him.

He [Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Khar-post]
was constantly occupied in organizing the army, and in
the equipment of his train; and those grandees and dis-
tinguished men of Khwarazm, who had become severed
from the service of Sultan Muhammad, were coming to
him at Ghaznin. Shihab-ud-Din-i-Alb, the Sarakhsi,? who
was the Wazir of the kingdoms of Ghaznin and Ghir on
the part of the Khwarazm Shah, came to Ghaznin. There
was [also] at Ghaznin a Kot-wal [Seneschal], whom they
used to style Salah-ud-Din, who was of the Lasbah [town]
of Gird-gan,' in conformity with the command of Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. Malik Khan of Hirat, who,
at the time of flying [from thence], had proceeded towards
Sistan, when the hot season set in, turned his face towards
Ghaznin, and news from Khurdasan was received respecting
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, that he was coming to
Ghaznin. Shihab-ud-Din-i-Alb, the Wazir, in secret, had

¢ (८ Ass-skinned ” or of ‘‘ Ass-like skin.” Itisa nickname. See pages 286
and 1002.

* When Ghir was independent.

7 In some copies, dy way of Burghor. See note >, page 1002.

* Or Pusht, which is the same in signification.

9 See page 285. :

' In a few copies of the text— 60,5—Kodakin, or Godagin.

1014 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

now devised a treacherous plot with Salah-ud-Din, the Kot-
wal, and had prepared a banquet and invited Malik Mu-
hammad-i-Khar-post to this convivial entertainment, and
Salah-ud-Din, the Kot-wal, assassinated that Malik-i-Ghazi
with a knife; and the army which he had gathered together
became dispersed.’

2 As our author has not entered into detail here, the following may tend to
elucidate the events of this period, but, in some particulars, it differs consi-
derably from his account, though he is certainly worthy of credit, as he was
living in those parts at the period in question.

The disloyal conduct of Malik Muhammad, ’Ali-i-Khar-post, towards
Malik Khan of Hirat, brought about his own downfall.

The Jahan-Kushie says that, when Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah,
fled from the banks of the river of Balkh, where he was encamped [on dis-
covering disaffection among some of his Turkish troops, and a plot to deliver
him over to the Mughals], Yamin [our authors Malik Khan—which is his correct
name, and whose ८11८ was Yamin-ul-Mulk—i. €. the right arm of the country},
Malik—the feudatory of Hirat and its dependencies, having proceeded thither
as directed, but unable to remain, retired from thence—which must have hap-
pened soon after the departure of the Mughals under Jabah [Yamah] and
Swidie [Sahiidah], on their way towards Nishabiir—by way of the Garm-sir.
At this time, ’Ali-i-Khar-post, the Ghirf, was at Ghaznah on the part of the
Sultan, with a force of 20,000 men ; and, when Yamin Malik arrived within
two or three stages of Ghaznah and encamped at Sirah [s,)»], he despatched
an agent to Muhammad son of ’Ali, saying, ‘‘assign us grazing ground [for the
horses and other cattle], so that we—thou and I—may continue together [for
mutual support], since the Sultan has fled towards ’Irak, and the Mughals and
Tattars have entered Khurasan, in order that we may see what may occur in
the Sultan’s affairs.”

At this time, the Shams-ul-Mulk, Shihab-ud-Din [Shihab-ud-Din-i-Alb just
mentioned in the text above. See also page 285], the Sarakhsi, who was the
Wazir, [one of the Wazirs ?] of the Sultan, was likewise at Ghaznah ; and Salah-
ud-Din, the Nis&i, who was Kot-wal [Seneschal] of the fortress and city, was
likewise located there. From this it appears that Muhammad, son of’ Ali-i-
Khar-post, was merely feudatory of the province, and the Kot-wal was in inde-
pendent command. The Khar-post and the Umra [of his troops] in reply to the
Yamin Malik’s [the Yamin-ul-Mulk’s] request, sent answer: ‘‘ We are Ghiris
and you are a Turk, and we cannot enter into connexion with you. The Sul-
tan has assigned fiefs and grazing grounds to each one : let each of us therefore
continue in his own locality until we see what may arise.’’ This is a specimen
of one out of the many similar causes of the Mughal successes, and the ruin of
the Musalman empire, and—like some modern Catos, who exclaim : ‘‘ Perish
our Indian Empire ”—the faction of Ghaznin would rather see the Musalmin
rule extinguished than their own selfishness and ambition frustrated.

Agents on several occasions passed between them, but no agreement was come
to ; and the Ghiri faction was obstinate in its refusal. As might have been
expected, the Shams-ul-Mulk, the Wazir, and the Seneschal, Salah-ud-Din,
conspired against the Khar-post, saying: ‘‘these Ghiris are disaffected towards
the Sultan, and refuse to allow Yamin Malik (the Yamin-ul-Mulk], who is the
Sultan’s kinsman, to enter the Ghaznah territory.” The whole of the forces of

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1015

In the year 617 H., Malik Khan of Hirat, as above stated,

Ghaznah were then collected together, encamped within half a farsang of the
city ; and the Shams-ul-Mulk and Salah-ud-Din, who were among them, con-
spired against Muhammad, son of ’Ali-i-Khar-post. They invited ‘him toa
feast, at a garden near by, when Salah-ud-Din, seizing the opportunity, stabbed
him with his dagger and slew him. After having killed the Khar-post, the
Shams-ul-Mulk, and Salah-ud-Din, before the deed became known, succeeded
in throwing themselves into the city, and secured the citadel ; and the Ghiris
became disunited, and, after two or three days, Yamin Malik [the Yamin-ul-
Mulk] arrived at Ghaznah and assumed authority.

Soon after came news that the Chingiz Khan had reached Tal-kan,
and 2000 or 3000 Mughals—z0,000 or 30,000 more likely—came in search
of Yamin Malik [the Yamin-ul-Mulk] by way of the Garm-sir. He sallied
out with a body of troops to encounter them; but they, finding him too
strong for them, did not venture to stand against him, and made a hasty
retreat. Yamin Malik [the Yamin-ul-Mulk] pursued them as far as Bust and
Tigin-abad ; but the Mughals had gone off in the direction of Hirat, and he,
by way of Kusdar, proceeded into the Shoristan—the Salt Desert between
Hirat, the Kuhistan, and Sijistan.

He had taken along with him the Wazir, the Shams-ul-Mulk, and impri-
soned him in the fort of Kajiran of Bust and Tigin-abad, and had left Salah-
ud-Din, the Seneschal, in charge of the citadel of Ghaznin ; but, after the
departure of Yamin Malik [the Yamin-ul-Mulk], the people of Ghaznin rose
against Salah-ud-Din, slew him, and gibbeted him. There were at Ghaznfn, at
this time, two brothers, natives of Tirmiz, the Razi-ul-Mulk, and the ’Umdat-ul-
Mulk (these are, however, ८८८ not patronyms], and they became the directors
of affairs ; and, having gathered together a large following, acquired the whole
power. The Khalj tribe [a section, see page 539 and note 5, para. 2], and
Turkmans, in great numbers, coming from Maward-un-Nahr and Khurasan,
congregated at Pargshawar, and their Sar-Khel, or Leader, was Saif-ud-Din,
Aghrak, who, in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, is called a Turkman. The Ragi-ul-
Mulk was desirous of moving against them, so that he might acquire power in
Hindistan [sic in AZSS., but the provinces on the Indus, part of the present
Panjab, is meant]. He accordingly assembled his forces, and marched against
them ; but he was overthrown by the Khalj and Turkmans, and killed with
most of his followers. His brother, the ’Umdat-ul-Mulk, was left in charge at
Ghaznin during his absence.

The A’zam-ul Mulk, also styled the A’gam Malik in the Jahan-Kughiae,
who was the son of ’Imad-ud-Din of Balkh, as mentioned above by our
author, who was the Hakim [here signifying that he held the fief and ruled
over it] of Nangrahar, and Malik Sher, the Hakim of Kabul, with the Ghiri
troops of the Sultin, who had gathered around them [they were Ghiris
themselves], marched upon Ghaznin, and invested the ’Umdat-ul-Mulk in the
fort, which is in the middle of the city. After they had placed catapults against
it, and besieged it for forty days, they captured the fortress; but, on the very
same day, arrived the Shams-ul-Mulk, the Wazir, whom Sultan Jalal-ud-Din,
flying towards Ghaznin by way of Khurasan [see note 7, page 286], had released
on reaching the fort of Kajiiran, in which Yamin Malik [the Yamin-ul-Mulk]
had confined him, and had sent on, in advance, to prepare for his reception at
Ghanin. A week after, the Sultan himself arrived; and troops began to
rally round him from all quarters, as already related under his reign, and as
will be noticed farther on.

1016 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

had retired before the Mughal forces and come to Ghaznin,
and, from thence, returned again towards the Garm-sir
with the intention of proceeding to Sistan. On the way
thither, he conferred the territory of Burshor [Purshor] upon
Razi-ul-Mulk ; and, when Razi-ul-Mulk came to Ghaznin
for the purpose of proceeding to Burshor [Purshor], the
people of Ghaznin kept him there. Subsequently to that,
however, Razi-ul-Mulk set out towards Burshor [ Purshor],
and the troops of the Ighrak’ [tribe] which were there
[congregated] put Razi-ul-Mulk to flight. After he had
withdrawn from thence the A’zam Malik,’ the Sipah-Salar
[Leader of Troops], the son of ’Imad-ud-Din of Balkh, who
was Amir of Nagrahar [Nangrahar], seized Razi-ul-Mulk,
and detained him. Suddenly, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-
barni, arrived in the Ghaznin [territory], upon which they
[020 -पर्त- and his partizans] slew Razi-ul-Mulk ; and,
shortly after, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, and Malik
Khan of Hirat, reached Ghaznin.®

Numerous troops joined them, consisting of Turks, Ghiris,
Tajziks, Khalj,andGhuzz, and a great armycollected. From
Ghaznin, they pushed forward towards Tukhiristan, and
routed an army of Mughals which were before the walls of
the fortress of Walishtan,° andcameback again [toGhaznin].

3 In some modern copies of the text, this name appears without the point
over € as lel and in one ws with the point omitted. Some modem his-
torians, and writers of lesser calibre, have consequently jumped at the conclu-
sion that these men were ’Irakis, or natives of ’"Irak—Babylonia. They did
not apparently know that ’Irak cannot be so written, but Gle The word
above as it now stands without a point over $ is merely the plural form of
’ Arak—5—-signifying, juice, essence, etc., and that, of course, is wrong.

The latest, and most amusing mistake on this subject is contributed by Sur-
geon-Major Bellew, C.S.1., ina book entitled ‘‘ A/ghanistan and the Afghans,”
written for the present Afghan crisis, in which he says, quoting some transla:
tion probably (page 185), that ‘‘Changiz at the time of his invasion found the
Peshawar valley held by /rac or Persian (sic) troops.” When, however,
Ghalzi Afghans are not Afghans but AAs/ich Turks [the Khalj tribe is possibly
referred to], and (< Zarins” are ‘‘Ghaljis,” and ‘‘ Sabaktaghin ” is the ‘‘ founder
of Ghazni,”’ what may we not expect ?

The word "I ghrak, as written by our author, is confirmed by the Jahan-Kugha¢e
and other Histories ; and there is not the shadow of a doubt that the "Ighrak
were Turks, and, moreover, that they were a section of the great tribe of
Khalj, as stated in the account of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din.

+ See note 8, page 1021, where he is referred to.

$ On the 17th of Zi-Hijjah—the last month—617 H.

6 The name of this place has been mistaken by many authors, who follow

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1017

When intimation of the coming of Sultan-Jalal-ud-Din,

and copy from each other, and they have turned it into Walian—,y\J|,—which,
in MS., is not so very different from ७८९11, but that a careless copyist might
leave out the 2—sh—entirely, seeing that the three shoulders—if they may be
so called—in the letter, in its intermedial form in a word—*+—are made one
of in 44S., thus—,*J|,—and might put the two points of o—t—znder instead
of over the letter, and thus make it .—, which has been done in the cases in
question. Our author, then in his 29th year, and his predecessor, the Baihaki,
both of whom were natives of these parts, and government officials, must
have known the names of such prominent places correctly. They continually
refer to WAlishtan [in the printed text of the Baihaki, however, the three
points of ~ have been left out] as well as to WalwiAlij, as totally distinct places,
but no such place as Walian is ever referred to. It is an undoubted error, as
well as the supposed siege of Bimian, as I shall presently show.

Now let us examine what the different writers, generally quoted, say on the
subject ; for the clearing up of this serious error is a matter of necessity. I
must first, however, refer to a European writer.

PETIS DE LA Croix, in his Life of ^" Gengéizcan,” quotes a number of
authors, some of whom are undoubtedly good, and some of little or no
authority, but the earliest wrote about a century after our author, who was
the Chingiz Khan’s contemporary. Some of the originals (quoted by P. de
la Croix), such as I could obtain access to on the spur of the moment, I have
examined, and I find that, very often, they are not correctly quoted. The
Nisawi’s Life of Jalal-ud-Din, I have not had access to, but I am convinced
the author could not have made some statements which he has had the credit
of. I will first notice P. de la Croix, in juxtaposition with some of his chief
authorities : for all I have not space.

Quoting ‘‘ Abulfarag”’ and ‘‘ Mirconde,” he tells us that ^ Genghizcan,”
after taking Za/can, put his troops in motion against Bamian, and was still
waiting for news of his troops, sent after Ge/aleddin towards India [Ghir and
the tracts between the Oxus and Ghaznin are meant, but some troops were
subsequently sent east of the Indus. See note 5, page 293 and page 297]. Then
(Mirconde] that, ‘‘ hearing Gelaleddin was at Ghazna, he hastened his march to
surprise him, but was stopped in Zadsulestan by the garrison of Bamzan, which
he hoped to take without opposition.” He had just begun to batter the place
when news reached him that the leaders of the forces he had sent towards
India [this is his own, as the sequel proves, or ‘‘ Marraschi”] had been
defeated, and then De la C. quotes the Nisdwi’s History to the effect that,
“two or three days after Gelaleddin got to Ghazna, he learnt that the Moguls
were near by and investing Candahar.”’ This is quite enough to stamp this
quotation as incorrect, for there was no such name known to Baihaki, or to
our author, at that period, and for very many years after, as Kandahar —
without taking into account its position from Gbhaznin—although the site is
undoubtedly ancient. It is probably identical with Tigin-abad, mentioned at
page 448. Then we are told that: ^" Emin Matec was come out of Hirat to
watch the Moguls,” and that ‘‘ Schamseddin commanded in the city for Azm,”’
after De la Croix had just before said that Schamseddin had usurped possession
of it, and that ^^ he had surprised this city in the absence of Emin Malec”’ [see
page 1013 of this translation], while the fact was that, at this time, Hirat had
been taken by Tali Khan, and had received a Mughal Shahnah or Intendant.
Then, again quoting the Nisawi, as he says, ‘‘ Emin Malec consented” to

3 T

1018 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

Mang-barni, and Malik Khan of Hirat, and the gathering

join his sovereign, and they now moved to relieve Candahar ‘‘ before the
citadel was taken,” and ‘‘surprised the Moguls, who had already taken and
plundered the town,” and drove them off with great slaughter, ‘‘the town
being full of dead bodies of Moguls and Tartars.”? All the Mogul army at
Candahar perished! The Sultan ‘‘repaired Candahar,” and “returned to
Ghazna.”

I have no opportunity, at present, of examining the Nisawi’s History, but
I feel certain that no such name as the city of Kandahar will be found in it,
unless the interpolation of some more modern writer or copyist ; and further
that it will not be found in any History of that period. Kandahar adjoins the
tract called the Zamin-i-Dawar, which Baihaki so often refers to in connexion
with Bust and Kusdar, and whose work, devoted to a single reign, is so full
of detail; and he mentions W4lisht in connexion with those places, but never
mentions such a place as Kandahar. At page 319, our author ६00, in his
account of the five great mountain ranges of Ghir, says, that ‘‘the fourth is
the mountain tract of Warani, in the valleys and outskirts of which are the
territories of Dawar [the Zamin-i-Dawar], Walisht, and the Kasr of Kajiiran.”
Is it possible that such a position as that of the city of Kandahar could then
have been in existence, and lying in the easiest route between Ghaznin and
Bust, without being once mentioned? It 15 also improbable that Walisht can
be W4lishtan, because we are distinctly told that the latter was in Tukhiris-
tan, which lies some five degrees farther north than Kandahar. The so-called
‘* Saygill,”” of some European writers, is merely an error for Sigiz, or Sijiz.
The ancient name too of Kandahir is said to have been Waihind, and of the
province Balyis.

Neither Baihaki nor our author, who constantly give names of places and
routes, especially the former, as from Hirat to Balkh, and Ghaznin to
Balkh, ever once mentions such a place as Walian, which, as I have already
remarked, is a mistake of some copyist for Walishtan, but both of them
mention Walwalij— ट 199 The only places mentioned in the MASALIK
WA MAMALIK and in IBN-HAUKAL in any way approaching the words under
discussion, in the parts indicated, are Zawalin—.J\y;—and Walin—,J!)—
with the— ; —left out in the latter, and which places neither Baihaki nor
our author mention, and they are undoubted errors for Walwalij. See note
2, page 288. There is a Waishian in Col. J. T. Walker’s last map, but no
reliance can be placed on our maps for correctness of names—especially in
Oriental names—names in the map of a country—which ninety, if not ninety-
nine, times out of every hundred, are inserted on oral evidence alone, but, for
historical accuracy, should be written first in the language of the country and
people, and then inserted in the map. Walshian of Col. Walker is, however,
just 90 miles N. of Bamian and 180 N. of Ghaznin, and is not mentioned in
any oriental History or Geography, that I am aware of.

P. de la Croix then goes on to say, first quoting Abi-l-Faraj for ‘‘Canda-
har” [page 306], and then Fadlallah [i.e. Rashid-ud-Din, Fagl-ullah], that
the Chingiz Khan determined, on hearing of this defeat, to despatch Tili, his
son, against the Sultin, and was about to send him off with 80,000 horse,
when another courier arrived announcing the revolt of Hirt, and, instead,
Tali was despatched thither, and continues: ‘Just after despatching Tulican
[Tilt Khan, however, had nothing whatever to do with the second attack
upon 1117६ See page 1049, and note 2), and after an unsuccessful attack on

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1019
of the troops of Islim, reached the Chingiz Khan, he

Bamian, news reached him of the movements of Confoucou Nevian [the Ni-
yan, Fiki, previously sent into ‘‘India”], who had arrived within a day’s
march of Gelaleddin, who advanced [quoting ‘‘ Nisavi’’ and ‘‘ Fadlallah”’] to
meet them, although one-fourth superior to his own force, and came upon them
just beyond a town called Sirouan, within a day’s journey of Ghazna.” This
force of Mughals was overthrown as already related above, and at pages
289-90 of this Translation. Then we have the astonishing statement [from
^ Nisavi ”’ it is said] that, afer this defeat at Birouan [Barwan], ‘‘ There was,
some days’ journey from thence, a party of Tartars [not Mughals} who were
besieging a fortress called Oua/a [the Walian of others], who, when they heard
of the battle of Bivouan, raised the siege and fled, and that ‘‘the defeat of
the Moguls and Zartars was quickly known to the Emperor, who was still
before Bamian.” Then follows the account of its capture and the massacre.
of every soul. The subsequent statements are generally correct.

As to some of the originals quoted, which I have examined in order to test
the doubtful passeges, I find that Rashid-ud-Din’s account is very different.
He says that Amin Malik [Yamin-ul-Mulk—Malik Khan of Hirat] joined
his sovereign with 50,000 men from the neighbourhood of Ghaznin, that the
Sultan married his daughter, that the Sultan and his forces continued the
whole winter at Ghaznin, and during that time, on the news of his arrival
having spread, was joined by Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, with 40,000 men, and
also by the Amirs of (त्ता and their followers. He then goes on to say,
that, early in the spring, hearing that the Mughals were attacking Walian
[our author’s Walishtan], and its being hard pressed, he advanced to Barwin
[it was near the sources of the Lohgar river], left all his heavy materials
there, and moved to attack them, as related in the notice of Jalal-ud-Din,
at page 288, note >, The Chingiz Khan heard of the first reverse within
the limits of Tal-kan, not at Bamian, as De la Croix asserts, and not one
word is mentioned about any siege of Bamian, and he, after hearing of the
last defeat of his troops, moved at once towards Ghaznin from Tal-kan. The
Fanakati mentions Tal-kan of Khurasdn, and makes no mention of any siege
of Bamian.

The Jahan-Kusghie, the account in which I have detailed farther on, says
Amin Malik was in the vicinity of Ghaznah when the Sultan arrived there,
and agrees with Rashid-ud-Din’s statements in all things, brings the Chingiz
Khan, at once, from the vicinity of Tal-kan of Khuradsdn to Ghaznin, and
makes no mention whatever of any siege or capture of any place calked
Bamian.

The Rauzat-us-Safa [De la Croix’s Mirconde, meant for Mir Khawind]
does not mention Walian at all; and the Chingiz Khan is made to advance
from Tal-kan [the correct name is given], but, to show his geographical
knowledge, probably, the author says he came by Andar-ab to Bamiain, by
which the Mughals must have gone only 7 degrees of Long.—some 480
miles—directly from W. to E. to reach Andar-ab, then come backwards some
120 or 130 miles more to the S.W. to reach Bamian through some of the
most difficult ground in Asia, while between Tal-kan and Bamian the distance
is only about 160 miles, and about equidistant from Marw-ar-Riid and Balkh.

The Habib-us-Siyar, written by the son of the author of the Rauzat-us-
Safa, agrees with that work.

The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir agrees with Rashid-ud-Din, and the Fandkati,

3 ¶ 2

1020 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

nominated the Nia-in, Fiki, who was his son-in-law, to

except that, in it, we have Barani—as in several authors—for Barwan, and
Namian for the Bamian of the Raugat-us-Safa.

The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi says nothing about Bamian, but the Mujami’-ul-
Khiyar agrees with the Rauzat-us-Safa.

Abii-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, says, that, after Balkh was destroyed, the
Chingiz Khan despatched 30,000 men, under several leaders, including the
Ni-yin Kutiki, ‘to cut off [the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh says, ‘‘to keep open”]
the communication between Ghaznin [in the Kazan edition wrongly spelt
Gazmin], Gharjistan, Zabul, and Kabul [wrongly spelt Zabil and Kamil], and
drive him into Kich ; and this shows, likewise, that द] एन and its dependen-
cies, and Zabulistan—N. W. and S.W. of Ghaznin, were the parts assailed by
the Mughals, and not Parwan N.N.E. of Kabul, which is quite in an opposite

direction. The translation, so called, of Abw-l-Ghizi, Bahadur Khan’s his-
tory, however, leaves out all mention of Kich, and much of the details ; and
says that the Mughals separated into two bodies, and that Kutiki, with his
force, moved towards Hirat to prevent Khan Malik [the Yamin-ul-Mulk] from
joining the Sultan. ‘‘ Another body,’ the translator continues, ‘‘ nearly sur-
prised Saygill,” and he also mentions Saygil/ above, where the Turki original
has 22694. Such a place as Saygill is not once referred to, and, instead of
Saygill, the Turki has Walian. ‘There is no mention of Barwan or of Kan-
dahar ; in fact Abi-l-Ghizi, Bahadur, does not give the name of the place
where Sultan Jalal-ud-Din overthrew the Mughals twice, but, with respect
‘‘to Tal-kan, Andar-ab, and Bamian, he implicitly follows the Raugat-us-
Safa. One great blunder on the part of this translator speaks volumes for the
value of his authority in these matters. He says that ‘‘ Sultan Khan Malik ”—
as he styles Malik Khin of Hirat—the Yamin-ul-Mulk—after the desertion
of Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, and Sultan Jalal-ud-Din’s retreat to the Ab-i-Sind,
‘returned to his government of Hirat!” It had been already invested and
taken by the Mughals under Tili Khan, at this time, as already related.

The most astonishing statement, respecting Balkh and Bamian, is contained
in Alfi, which I shall presently notice, but, as to Jalal-ud-Din’s movements
from Ghaznin, it is very brief, and agrees with Rashid-ud-Din, and the Jahan-
Kushie, that the Sultan set out in the beginning of spring to Barwan, pushed
on to relieve Walian, and defeated the Mughals, who retired across the river
[the Hirmand, no doubt]—breaking the bridge that the Musalmans might not
follow them, and made their escape. The Sultan returned to Barwan, after
relieving Walian [Walishtan. The same remarks apply here as at the head
of this note.]. But, on the seventh day after, a Mughal army of 30,000 men.
[Fiki’s force was 45,000 our author says], which the Chingiz Khan had
despatched under the Nii-yan, Sankghiir, appeared on the scene, but they were
overthrown with great loss, notwithstanding their stratagem of dummy horse-
men. Then follows Saif-ud-Din, I ghrak’s desertion and the Sultdn’s retreat
to the Sind, ‘‘which is now known as the Nil-Ab.” The same work also
adds that the Chingiz Khan, at this time, had brought the siege of Tal-kan to
a conclusion, and Bamian is not once mentioned in his subsequent movements
from Tal-kan to Ghaznin.

The most conclusive proofs, however, against a long siege of any place
named Bamian are the dates and the facts that the Chingiz Khan heard near
7al-kan of the repeated defeats of his truops, and that he moved straight from
the Pughtah-i-Nu’man to Ghaznin, and, to enable him to reach it by the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1021

advance from Hirat and Khurasdn towards Ghaznin.
When he [with his troops] arrived on the confines of Bar-
wan,’ Sultan Jalal-ud-Din advanced against that army,
and gave it battle, defeated it and put it to flight, and
despatched great numbers of the Mughal infidels to hell.
A second, and a third time, Mughal armies advanced, and
were overthrown.

In the army of Sultan Jalal.ud-Din were a great number
of the Ighrak [tribe], all warlike men, and ruthless horse-
men, and, between that body of the Ighrak, and the ’Ajamis
and Khwarazmis, a quarrel arose respecting the booty, and
hostility ensued ; and that body of Ighrak troops separated
from Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and went off to another place
and the Sultan remained with the Turks [only].

shortest route, there was no need for him to have passed the place which
appears in the maps as Bamian at all. See note >, page 1024.

7 It lay near the sources of the Lohgar [now Logar] river.

9 See note 3, page 290, next to last para., and note 7, page 498.

With respect to these movements, a very pretty muddle has been mede in
“‘ Mongols Proper,” page 89, and shows what a profound knowledge of the
ethnology as well as the geography of these parts some of the ‘‘authorities ”
quoted therein must have possessed. After turning “ Khan Melik,” [Malik
Khin—the Yamin-ul-Mulk] into ‘‘ the late governor of Meru,” it is stated that
** Seif ud din Agruk, a Turkoman chief, brought his Turkomans and Xadladyes
(the latter a mixed race of Arabs and Turkomans, who wandered between the
‘Indus and the Ganges),” joined Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and, subsequently,
“Seif ud din ” is made to ‘‘retire into Beloochistan!!” At page 716 of the
same book, there is a note to this, and it is said there: ‘‘ this is a statement
from Wolff, and it is not quite exact.” Truly! ^ Erdmann says, towards
Kerman and Lenkoran. Raverty calls these mountains Kayman and San-
kuran. D’Ohsson says he retired to Peshawar. This is mo doubt right [of
course ! but see note 3, page 230, para. 6, and note 7, page 498, para. 5], and
his followers were not the Kankalis but the Kalladjes.”

The Jahan-Kushiae, which is generally well-informed on matters of detail,
and also tolerably correct—save and except the practice of always lessening the
number of the Mughals, and increasing the number of their opponents four-
fold or more, and concealing their defeats— says, that Sultan Jalal-ud-Din
marched towards Barwan, which is the boundary of the Namian [Bamian]
territory [the situation of Barwan 1९28 the sources of the Lohgar river agrees
with this description], where several routes converge, in order that he might
become acquainted with the state of affairs, when, during his absence from Ghaz-
nin, a force of 10,000 or 12,000 Mughals [45,000, see p. 1006], who were in
pursuit of him, reached Ghaanin. The place being denuded of troops, they
entered the city [! ! suburbs ?], burnt the Adinah [Friday] 4/as/id, and slew all
who happened to fall in their way, but, next day, after plundering the country
around, they set out in pursuit of the Sultan, gave him battle [this is his pro-
Mughal bias, and is guile the reverse of what took place, as confirmed by every
other writer without exception—the author was 2 high official in the Mughal

1022 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

_ When the Mughal Ni-in, Fiki, returned defeated to the
Chingiz Khan, the latter moved [from his camp at] the

service], and were defeated, and they retired to Tal-kan, before which the
Chingiz Khan then was. The writer then hushes up the subsequent overthrows
of the Mughals at the Sultan’s hands, and proceeds to narrate the defection of
a great part of his troops, consequent on the quarrel between Yamin Malik, as
hestyles Malik Khan of Hirat [whose title was the Yamin-ul-Mulk. See page
287,and page 540, note 5, para. 2], and Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak. Malik Saif-ud-
Din, Ighrak, together with other Kthalj Amirs, and the A’gam Malik [the
A’zam-ul-Mulk, son of ’Imad-ud-Din, the Balkhi], a Ghiiri chief, with their
troops, Khalj {there were Kankulis, and Ghuzz, among them too. See page
376], Turkmans, and Ghiris, went off in the direction of Parshawar, while the
other Turks and Khwarazmis, with the Sultan, retired towards Ghaznin.

It must not be lost sight of, in connexion with this mention of Ghuzz, that
they were once in possession of Ghaznin, Kabul, and Zabul

These Khalj Turks, under the name of 44८4, Dr. Bellew makes Ghalz
Afghans of, and Col. G. ए. Malleson first turns them into ‘‘ Abdalis ”’ and
afterwards into ‘‘ Ghilzais |”

These selfish and disloyal chiefs, however, very soon received their deserts.
They proceeded towards Nangrahar [originally called Nek-anhar—the district
immediately south of the Kabul river, and extending from Bhati-kot on the
east to the Surkh-Ab Koial on the west, and to Kaja on the south, which was
the fief of the A’gam Malik, and then included in the jurisdiction of Burshor,
or Parshawar]. Arrived there he entertained the other chiefs for a time,
but, there being aversion between Nih, the Jan-dar [in हात, incorrectly
rendered from an imperfect J/S., probably, “ Koh Fin-ddr,” a strange name
fora man. 5} has been read ॐ and mistaken probably for sS—the former
is a proper name: the latter signifies a mountain. The office of Jan-dar has
been previously described], who was head of a khel [clan] of about 5000 or
6000 families, and Malik Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, he, in consequence, tured his
face towards Parshawar with his 20,000 followers, while Niih, the Jan-dar,
stayed behind in the pasture-lands of Nangrahar [not “ cantoned himself,” as
in the wotk above quoted]. When Saif-ud-Din had proceeded one stage on
his way, he sent a message to the A’zam Malik saying :—‘‘ We are as father
and son towards each other: thou the son, I the father. If thou desirest my
good pleasure, send away Nib, the Jan-dar, to his own place of dwelling, and
his own locality, and do not allow him to remain in Nangrahar. [The
Khalj tribe—or rather a portion of them—had been located in the neighbour-
hood of the Safed-koh, on the southern slopes, in Kayman and Shaliizan for
several centuries previous. See note 5, page 539, para. 2.]- The A’zam
Malik replied : ‘‘It is not well, at this time of warfare, that antagonism
should exist among the soldiers uf Islim.” Thus saying, he rode off with
some fifty of his Khowas—or retainers—after Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, to endeavour
to bring about a reconciliatibn between him and Nuh, the Jan-dar. Saif-ud-Din
went forth to receive the A’gam Malik, and brought him in, and seated him
by his side at a convivial drinking party. The A’gam Malik began to refer to
the matter of Niith, the Jan-dar, and to interpose in his favour. Saif-ud-Din,
Ighrak, inebriated as he was, suddenly got up, mounted his horse, and,
attended by 100 horsemen, set out towards the encampment of Nik, the
Jan-dar. द्विप्र), under the impression that he was coming to him, consequent
on the A’zam Malik’s intervention, with a friendly object, went forth, with

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1023

Pushtah-i-Nu’man, with all the forces remaining there with
him, and turned his face towards Ghaznin. He fought a
battle with Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, and Malik
Khan of Hirat, and other Khwarazmi Maliks who stood
by him, on the banks of the Sind river ; and Sultan Jalal-
ud-Din and the troops of Islam were defeated, and threw
themselves into the Sind river. Of the Musalmans some
were drowned, some attained martyrdom, some were made
captive, and a few escaped in safety out of the river.

ACCOUNT OF THE TAKING OF WALKH * OF TUKHARISTAN.

When, in conformity with the command of the Chingiz
Khan, Arsalan Khan of Kaialik, the Musalman, with his
own troops, and the Juzbi, Tilan, the Mughal, marched
to the fortress of Walkh,' they sat down before it for a
period of eight months; and, as that fortress had no

his sons, to receive him, and saluted him, when Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, drew his
sword to smite चित्त, but his followers seized him, and cut him to pieces.

When intimation of Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak’s, fate reached his camp, his people
said: ‘* This was deception which the A’gam Malik adopted, in concert with
Nuh, in order to destroy the Ighrak Malik ;” and, under this supposition,
they seized the A’zam Malik, and slew him, and the Ighrak forces fell upon
the encampment of Nith, and slew him and all his sons. Great numbers
were killed on either side, and the Ghiris [—.b,,¢—mistaken for ,b,e—
women, in ELLIOT, vol. II., p. 401, out of which a ridiculous episode has
been made that ^" even the women took part in the affray !”] took part in the
fighting, and a great number were killed.

About that time also Bak-chak and ’Ala-ul-Mulk, ,»» [the word is doubt-
ful. It might be Kunduz—’Ala-ul-Mulk of Kunduz, but it is not ‘‘ Sadr,”
certainly, as in ELLIOT], by command of the Chingiz Khan, arrived in
order to bring these wine-bibbers to condign punishment. Bak-chak was
Amir of the Mughals, and ’Ala-ul-Mulk, the Sar-Khel—head of the levy or
body [jarié] of local footmen; and so the remainder of those Khalj, Turkman,
and Ghiri troops, two or three months after they had deserted the Sultan,
were all either slain and dispersed at the hands of each other, or slaughtered
by the troops of the Chingiz Khan, in such wise that not a trace of them was
left. See also page 1043.

No doubt, all these events had something to do with the subsequent move-
ments of the Karliks, or Karliighs, and the Khalj, towards Sind. See note
% page 374, note 7, page 498, page 534, and page 539, note $.

9 In the best St. Petersburg A/S. the copyist, in this heading, had written

#—Balkh — but afterwards crossed out the » and prefixed 9 to the word— abs In
some copies of the text to this heading is added ‘‘and the fortresses Of the
territory of Bamian,” but Walkh is alone referred to.

1 They had a force of 20,000 men with them,

a

1024 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

approach [save one] in any direction, they gave orders to
the Mughal troops in such wise that, around and in the
parts adjacent to that mountain skirt, they kept felling
trees and throwing their trunks and branches at the foot of
the fortress, and making it appear to the people within the
stronghold that they would [really] fill up the darah [defile],
whereas it could not be filled up in the space of a hundred
years from its profundity ;? but, as the vengeance of

> This description will not suit the situation of Balkh in any way whatever,
which, as the MASALIK WA MAMALIK, IBN-HAUKAL, and others, tell us, is
situated on Ievel ground, at the distance of four farsakh—Icagues—from the
mountains, and that it was fortified [notwithstanding the author of “ Mongols
Proper,” p. 80, tells us “it was unfortified `] with ramparts and a citadel.

As I have hinted before, it seems to me, that, as the words +, and are
something similar in appearance, and ज sometimes used for 39 ie d wice Bersa,
and as Bami is another name for the city of Balkh, some of these writers,
who incorrectly make Balkh stand a siege of thirty-seven days, may have
jumbled the whole of these words together, and made Bamiin out of it.

It will be noticed that our author, although he gives so many details
respecting Walkh and other places—strong hill fortresses, sometimes miles in
girth—[which the pro-Mughal historians seem quite uncognizant of, or the
operations concerning which they were determined not to notice, and never
quote], and knew so much about them, makes not the slightest allusion to
any investment of Balkb, nor to its having submitted to the Mughals, nor to
the slaying of its inhabitants by those infidels. Had such happened, so near
his native place, is it possible he could not have known it? or that, had he
been aware of it, he would have concealed it, especially when there was no
reason for doing so?

Most of the works previously referred to are exceedingly meagre in their
details, and there are numerous discrepancies in their accounts, and confusions
in their dates, respecting the movements of the Chingiz Khan after the capture
of Tirmid. The Tarikh-i-Alfi says: ‘‘ Having passed the river Amiiah at
the Tirmid ford, early in 618 H., the Chingiz Khan moved towards Balkh
[our author’s Walkh], which, after an investment of thirty-seven days, was
taken by storm, the people having resisted obstinately to, the last. He gave
orders for a general massacre of the people of Balkh because, at Bamian, his
grandson, Chaghatae’s son, had been killed [here is a muddle! and so the
attack on Bamian took place frst, after crossing the Oxus! This remark
sufficiently proves how much some of the historians are at sea. Crossing the
Oxus.at Tirmid, Balkh would be reached first, and Bamian is some 150 or
160 miles S.S.E. of it], and, therefore, to avenge his death, the Chingiz Khan
gave orders for a general massacre of the people of Balkh, and all, both young
and old, perished.”

P. de la Crotx pretends, but does not quote his author here, but, subse-
quently, quotes ‘‘ Mirconde,” that it was because Sultan Jalal-ud-Din was
**so favourably received by the people of Balc,”? where ‘‘he dwelt many
weeks” [but near which he never went], that the people were massacred.

The other version, in which the majority of the works I have been quoting
agree, is, that, in 617 H. [the end of the ycar is meant, but, some say, in the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1025

Heaven, and the decree of Fate, had come down [upon the
Musalmans], the son of the Ra’-is * [Chief] of Walkh came
into the camp of the Mughals, and he directed and guided

first month of 618 H.], when the Chingiz Khan appeared before Balkh, the
chief ecclesiastics and other personages went forth to receive him with offer-
ings for his acceptance, and tendered the submission of the city; but, as
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din was still in existence, and causing tumult and disorder [it
is here P. de la Croix’s error occurs], the inhabitants were expelled from the
city into the open country without, and all massacred to the number of 52,000
souls, after which, the city of Balkh, ‘‘the Tabernacle of Islim,” as it is
termed, ^“ was levelled with the plain in which it stood.”

The Rauzat-us-Safa says, that, ‘‘in the history of Balkh it is stated, that
the city and its dependent villages—not the city only—had attained to such a
degree of prosperity and populousness, that it contained no less than 1200
Jami’ Masjids, and 1400 baths, and that there were some 50,000 Sayyids,
Mullds, and Maulawis there [and yet all the inhabitants were massacred, and
the number was 52,000 in all !] ... . Of ail the lofty and splendid build-
ings which the city contained, not a vestige was left standing.” The rest
agrees with the accounts above given.

Now, considering that our author is so correct with respect to Tal-kan of
Khurasaén, and how most authors have blundered with respect to it, and, as
he, who was a native of these very parts, was dwelling within the fortress of
Tilak at the time, and personally acquainted with several of the great chiefs
he names, I conceive that what the other Histories I have previously referred
to speak of as Balkh is no other than the great fortress of Walkh, that their
Bamian is his Tal-kan, and Walian, as some style it, and ^" Candahar” of
others, is his, and Baihaki’s, Wa4ligshtan. ४

The MASALIK WA MAMALIK and IBN-HAUKAL certainly tell पऽ that
“‘Tukharistan and Bamian are districts of Balkb,’’ and that ‘‘ Bamian is a
town half as large as Balkh, situated ona hill, and is the only town in the
district situated on a hill,” but others tell us [see note ०, page 426] that there
was no town or city so called, and that the chief place’ in the Bamian district
was Rasif—ctel,—or Rasif—cie—but in the History of Timi it is written
Arguf— is,l—and is repeatedly mentioned. In his account of the dynasty
of Bamian and Tukhiristan, our author never once mentions such a town,
city, or fortress, but he constantly mentions Balkh, and does so in this
Section, as well as Walkh, Walwialij, and Walishtan, and, in this Section,
also refers to ‘‘the fortress of Bamian,” which, as in some other instances,
might be correctly rendered, द or ८#८ fortress of or im the district of Bamian.
Our author’s ‘‘fortress of Bamian” is, doubtless, that which is called by
modern travellers ‘‘ Goolgooleh,”’ built upon an isolated rock in the middle of
the valley, through which runs the river of Bamidn, and near which, in after
times, a town named after the district sprung up. Excavations in the rocks, as
may be noticed at page 1058, are by no means peculiar to the well known ones
nearthis Bamian. The great fortress of Zubak, situated at the extreme end of
a defile on one of the two routes from Kabul to the comparatively modern
Bamlan, is, in my idea, the Walkh of our author. See ‘‘ Sale’s Defence of
Jalél-abad,” and note 6, page 1058.

* It was previously stated that the Sarhang, Sam, and the Pahlawa4n,
Arsiah, were sent to the fortress of Walkh, but who the Ra’is was is not
mentioned, ।

1026 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

them by a path by which a single light-footed person, on
foot, alone could proceed. In the ridges of that mountain
[on which the fortress stands] are numerous niches of stone,
like unto couches ;‘ and, for the space of three nights and
days, he continued to take the Mughals and conceal them
in those niches until a considerable number of men as-
cended towards the fortress. On the fourth day, at the
dawn of morning, the enemy raised a shout, and fell with
their swords upon the band which guarded the gateway of
the fortress, until they cleared the gateway completely of
its defenders. The Mughal army [now] ascended to the
place, and martyred the whole of the Musalmans within it,
and set their hearts at ease respecting that momentous
affair.

They [the Mughal leaders] were directed so that they
proceeded from the height of the fortress of Walkh to the
foot of the [walls of the] fortress of Fiwar of Kadas,* and
invested that fortress likewise.

Victory to the true believers, and destruction to the
infidels !

ACCOUNT OF THE CAPTURE OF THE CITIES OF KHURA-
SAN, AND THE MARTYRDOM OF THEIR INHABITANTS.

Trustworthy persons relate after this manner, that the
Chingiz Khan had four sons. The eldest of them was
named (517० the next younger than he was named
(1221286, the third was called Uktde, and the fourth,
who was the youngest of all, was named Tilt. When the
Chingiz Khan marched from Mawara-un-Nahr into Khura-
sin, he despatched Tishi and (1211226, with a large
army, towards Khwarazm,’ Khifchak, and Turkistan ; and
(पार was nominated to proceed, with a numerous army,
towards the cities of Khurasan ; and Uktae, the Chingiz
Khan kept near himself.

In the year 617 H., प turned his face from the [great

+ Recesses in the hills probably.

5 See page 375, note 8.

6 Which is also written Jiji, using the Irani ज.

7 The account of the capture of the capital of Khwarazm will be found in
the notice of Tiishi farther on. He was afterwards to enter Khifchak.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1027

camp at the] Pushtah-i-Nu’man towards the city of Marw,
and took that city, and martyred its inhabitants. From

$ Our author and all other Musalman and Mughal! historians must be wrong,
for does not Col. Malleson, C.S.I., in his ‘‘ History of Afghanistan from the
Earliest Times,” which some writer in the «^ Times ” has declared ‘‘ a marvel
of accuracy,” tell us at page 113 that “‘ Chinghiz” himself took Balkh, Merv,
Herat, Nishapor, and Tus in succession? Our author gives no particulars
respecting the fall of Marw-i-Shah-i-Jahain, one of the most celebrated and
ancient cities of Khurasan, and therefore I will endeavour to supply them from
other writers. After the Chingiz Khan had crossed the Jibiin and destroyed
Balkh, but Walkh, according to our author and some others, he deter-
mined to subjugate Khurasdn, and despatched, in 618 H., from the neigh-
bourhood of Tal-kian—between that place and Balkh [which agrees with
our author’s statement], 80,000 horse, computed as one tenth of his whole
host, under his youngest son, Till, with whom he associated Taghachar, a
younger brother of the Nii-yan, Karachar, the ancestor of Amir Timi.
Taghachar, on acount of his having married one of the Chingiz Khan’s
daughters, is ‘‘styled the Gurgan, which is to say, in the Turki language,
son-in-law, and ddmdd in Persian,” and, therefore, those who have hitherto
imagined that this is a Chinese title peculiar to, and frst used with reference
to Timiir as having married into the family of ‘‘the great Khan,” [but that
was not the reason] will perceive that, although Amir Timiir may have been
the /as¢ to whom that Turki title was applied, he was certainly not the /irs¢.

When सां had proceeded forward a few marches, he detached Taghachar,
in advance, with 12,000 horse, some say 10,000, to Nishabir, imagining pro.
bably, after what had been stated to Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahidah],
as related previously, that that city would be given up at once. The Mughals
were mistaken, however, for the Majir-ul-Mulk, the Kafi, ’Umr-i-Raji, and
Ziya-ul-Mulk, the Zauzani, who had made vast preparations for defending the
city, had no such intention. Alfi states that the Amir-i-Majlis, Sharaf-ud-Din,
was the governor. They had, among other things, besides catapults and
balistas, 3000 tir-charkh, machines for discharging iron projectiles filled with
inflammable composition, in shape like a rocket, and naphtha in flasks, and 300
g4irarahs [the meaning of ghiradrah is variously given as an iron helmet, and
also a kind of net, but some sort of projectile must be meant], all of which
were disposed on the towers and ramparts. Ona Wednesday, in the middle
of Ramazan [December, 1220 A.D.], at dawn, the Mughals attacked the place,
and continued the attack for three successive days without intermission, but,
on the Friday, at the time of midday prayer, a rocket struck Taghachar, the
Girgan, and killed him.

It is somewhat remarkable that a Tiikajar should have been killed at
Fishanj near Hirat, in the first Mughal irruption into Khurasan, and a
Taghachar before Nishabir on the second occasion, but, notwithstanding the
similarity of names, the two events are clearly recorded.

After this reverse, the Ni-yan, Nirka [ ४,], the next in command, finding
it was impossible to obtain possession of Nishabiir, divided his force into two
bodies, and departed. One took the direction of Sabzwar, and, after assailing
that place for three days and nights, carried it, and the Mughal leader ordered
a general massacre, and slew 70,000 persons. All this, however, seems
scarcely possible for 5000 or 6000 men to effect, and the number, evidently,
has not been truly stated. The other half of the Mughal force moved to Tis,

1028 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
thence he advanced to Nishapir, which, after much fighting,

captured the fortress of Jand, which was near Tiis, and likewise massacred the
inhabitants. In the work entitled ^ 2८ Mongols Proper,” these proceedings,
under the names ‘‘ Thus” and ^^ Kuhustan,” are wrongly attributed to या
Khan, who never went near those places.

In the meanwhile Tili marched towards Marw, but, before doing so, he
sent requisitions into the different parts adjacent, which had submitted to the
yoke, such as Sarakhs, Abiward, and some other towns, to levy men to assist
in his operations against their fellow-countrymen, so that, besides his army,
some 70,000 men were brought together. After demolishing some few small
forts and places on his route, and drawing near Marw, according to the
Mughal custom, he despatched a body of 4oo horse to reconnoitre. This
force, having advanced during the night, fell upon an encampment of #/aés, or
nomads, and on making investigation found it was an encampment of ऽग
Turkmans, then preparing to make a raid upon the environs of Marw. How
these Turkmans happened to be there at this time I must briefly explain, for
the details are very long.

At this period Marw-i-Shah-i-Jahan—-a different place from Marw-ar-Rid—
was one of the largest, wealthiest, richest, and most populous cities of Asia [a
place, or rather that which has taken or stands in its position, which, at this
moment attracts, and, for some time past, has attracted the serious attention of
those patriotic Britons, who would not see the hordes of another Chingiz domi-
nant over Asia and Eastern Europe to the mortal injary of British interests both
in India—which they do not desire to see ^" perish ”—and in Europe]. Sharaf-
-ud-Din, Mugaffar, who bore the title of Majir-ul-Mulk, was one of the great
men of Sultan Mubammad, Khwirazm Shiah’s court, and carried his head
very high, because his mother, who had occupied a subordinate position in the
Sultin’s 4avam, when she was conferred in marriage on the reputed father,
who was made a mushrif [clerk or accountant in a treasury] on that occasion,
was said to be pregnant by the Sultan. The son whom she bore, in time,
rose to a high position, and had been a Wazir, and Hakim of Marw and its
dependencies. He had, however, for some reason, been removed, prior to the
Mughal invasion, and another person, who bore the title of Baha-ul-Mulk,
son of Najib-ud-Din, had been appointed in his stead, and the Majir-ul-Mulk,
Sharaf-ud-Din, Mugaffar, consequently, returned to the presence of the
Sultan. When the Sultan, dreading lest he might fall into the hands of the
barbarian Mughals, proceeded towards Mazandaran, he gave directions to all
his Amirs to secure the fortresses of Khurdsin, and to have them garrisoned
and provided with catapults and other war engines, so as to afford protection to
the people around, while of such places as could offer no opposition the unfor-
tunate Sultin recommended the inhabitants to submit to the invaders on their
appearing, and so save their lives, and to trust to the upshot of events. On
this command being issued, the Baha-ul-Mulk removed all the valuable pro-
perty and treasure from Marw to the fortress of Tak—the Raugat-us-Safa, and
Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur, have Yazar and Yariz, respectively—whither he him-
self withdrew, and left a Deputy at Marw, while the people, all but those
whom fate induced to remain, dispersed into various other places. It was at
this crisis that the Nii-yans, Jabah [Yamah] and Swidic [Sahiidah], with ४
large army, appeared before it, as already related, and the chief ecclesiastics,
who had remained behind in Marw, afraid of the Mughals, sent a person to
those leaders with presents, and tendered submission. They could not stay ८७

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1029
he captured ; and, in order to take vengeance because the

take possession, and so, contenting themselves with the presents and offerings,
passed on without molesting Marw.

At this time, a predatory Turkman chief, named Buka, having concerted
with a body of his clansmen, succeeded, unexpectedly, in throwing himself
into Marw, and made himself Amir and Hakim, and a great number of the
Sultan’s soldiery, and Turks of those parts, as well as other soldiers of fortune,
gathered around him, so hostile were they to the Mughals. Inthe meantime,
the Majir-ul-Mulk had left the Sultan in his retreat [Raugat-us-Safa says, after
the Sultan’s death] in one of the islands in the Caspian, and gained the fort of
$a’lik [in Gildan], the seneschal of which, Shams-ud-Din, ’Ali, received him
with honour and. reverence, and rendered him all assistance in his power.
This enabled the Majir-ul-Mulk to collect a large force of Turks and Tajziks,
and he marched tg Marw, and took upa position in the garden facing the
Dar-i-Sarrajan, or Gate of the Saddlers. A number of the chiefs of the Mar-
ghazi, who had formerly been in the Majir-ul-Mulk’s service, hearing of his
arrival, flocked round him with the men of that tribe. Bika, however, would
not admit the Majir-ul-Mulk, until the latter, by presents and promises, had
gained over a great number of the inhabitants, who had gone and waited on
him, and on this accession of strength, one day at noon, boldly proceeded
towards the city, and entered it without opposition. Bika, out of necessity,
now went and waited on him, and, with his followers, was enrolled among the
rest of the Majir-ul-Mulk’s retainers.

The Majir-ul-Mulk, having now gathered around him followers and fighting
men to the number of 8000, began to think of something more than a subor-
dinate position. This raised the ire of the Shaikh-ul-Islam of Marw, Shams-
ud-Din, Harisi, who began intriguing against him with a relative, the Kazi of
Sarakhs—which place the Mughals had obtained possession of, and left an
Intendant at—in order, even at the cost of giving up Marw to the Mughals, to
bring about the Majir-ul-Mulk’s downfall. Some informers brought this to
the latter’s notice, and he accused the Shaikh-ul-Islam, who stoutly denied the
charge. At last, a letter, in his own hand-writing, to the Kazi of Sarakhs, in
reply to one of his own, the bearer having beer intercepted by the way—some
say, a letter of the Kazi to him—fell into the Majir-ul-Mulk’s hands, who at
once requested the Shaikh-ul-Islam to visit him. On his arrival, he said :
“ What news hast thou from Sarakhs? and what are its people doing?” The
Shaikh replied : ‘‘I have no cognizance of their affairs, and have no informa-
tion respecting them.” The Majir-ul-Mulk threw his own letter towards him,
saying, ‘‘ There, read that!” and, seeing his own letter, he was utterly con-
founded. The Majir-ul-Mulk, in a contemptuous manner, exclaimed, ‘‘ De-
part!” and the traitor was rising to do so when several chiefs closed with him,
and with their daggers slew him, and then, dragging the corpse along by the
heels, cast it into the market-place, and left it to the dogs, as all traitors to
their country deserve.

After this, the Majir-ul-Mulk began to detach troops to harry the vicinity of
Sarakhs; and the Baha-ud-Mulk [the Sultan’s governor], hearing of the
State of affairs, and the predominance acquired by the Majir-ul-Mulk, came
forth from the Hisar of Tak, and went to the Mughal Amirs in those parts
{our author mentions how numerous bodies of Mughals were sent into Ghir
and Gharjistan about this time], acquainted them with the state of affairs,
and sought to obtain, through them, the charge of the territory of Marw

1030 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
son-in-law of the Chingiz Khan had been slain at that

agreeing to pay a certain amount yearly as tribute. His offers were accepted,
and he was sent to Marw, along with a body of Mughal troops. Arrived at
Shahristan, the Baha-ul-Mulk indited a letter to the Majir-ul-Mulk, saying:
‘<Some ill-feeling and distrust existed between us on account of a certain
office, but that has vanished ; and, as the power of the Mughals is such as
cannot be coped with, wisdom and foresight alike demand that no other road,
save that of submission and obedience, should be traversed. At this time
7000 Mughals and 10,000 levies are on the way to this part along with me,
and therefore regret and sorrow will follow aught save submission to them.”

When the Majir-ul-Mulk received this communication, he became disturbed
and astounded, in such wise, that his most trusted and confidential followers
were for at once dispersing and seeking places of security. After a time,
however, they advised him not to believe this statement of an interested per-
son and a traitor, and that to abandon Marw would be an act of great folly.
The messengers from the Baha-ul-Mulk were separated and questioned
respecting the actual number of troops along with him, and, on their giving
replies confirming the Bahi-ul-Mulk’s statement, the Majir-ul-Mulk ordered
both of them to be put to death, and despatched from Marw a body of 2500
Turk troops of the Sultan of Khwarazm, to drive off the Baha-ul-Mulk and
his Mughal allies. When the Mughals found this, they secured the Baha-ul-
Mulk, whose own followers now deserted him, and returned towards Tis,
where they struck off his head.

The body of Turk cavalry, detached by the Majir-ul-Mulk, pushed on as
far as Sarakhs; and, on their appearance there, the Musalmans seized the
Kizi, Shams-ud-Din, who had taken offerings to Jabah [Yamah] and Swidie
[Sahiidah], and had assumed the authority there, and made him over to a
man whose father the Kazi had caused to be put to death unjustly, who slew
him according to the law of retaliation. All noise respecting the Mughal
armies now became suspended—it was the calm preceding the hurricane, how-
ever—and the Majir-ul-Mulk gave himself up to pleasure and revelry, drinking,
and other unlawful acts.

At this juncture, Ikhtiyir-ud-Din, a Turkman, who was Hakim of Amiiah,
came to Marw, and reported that the Mughal forces were coming, that they
had reached the Ami, and were then investing Kala’-i-Nau. Although the
Majir-ul-Mulk received him with great distinction, nevertheless Ikhtiyar-ud-
Din was hostile to him—on account of his remissness probably, at such a
crisis—and he went and took up his quarters with the Turkmans. Soon after $00
Mughal horsemen came in search of Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, and threw themselves
upon the Turkmans. At this juncture, Shaikh Khan, and.Aghiil, the Hajib,
who arrived with 2000 men from the side of Khwarazm, laid an ambuscade for
the Mughals, slew the greater part of them, and took sixty of them captive,
who were paraded about Marw, and then put to a cruel death.

Shaikh Khan, and the Hajib, Aghil, made no stay, and retired to the
Dasht-i-Khurz, upon which the Turkmins chose Ikhtiyar-ud-Din as their
head and ruler, entered into a covenant with him, left the service of the
Majir-ul-Mulk, and contemplated taking the city out of his hands. He, how-
ever, got information of it, and prepared to defeat their design, upon which
they, being hopeless of surprising Marw, went and pitched their camp on
the banks of the river of Marw. They then began to plunder the villages
around, and the suburbs of the city, up to its very walls, and to appropriate

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1031
place, he martyred every person in Nishapir, desolated it,

everything they could Jay their hands upon. In the meantime, Tili Khin,
having drawn a levy of 70,000 men from Sarakhs, Nisa, Abiward, and
other towns of Khuradsan, which had submitted to the Mughal yoke, and
incorporated them into his army, moved towards Marw.

Having arrived in the vicinity, he sent in advance—so say the pro-Mughal
historians—a body of 400 horse—much more probably 4000—to reconnoitre, so
that, in the night, they reached the banks of the Marw river, close to the khels
of the Turkmans, and there they halted. There were 12,000 men there as-
sembled for the purpose of making a raid in the vicinity of the city ; and, in that
dark night, each detachment of Turkmans, as they came up, totally unsuspecting
the presence of such foes, were attacked unawares, in detail, and slaughtered ;
and, during that night, the Mughals destroyed the whole of the 12,000 Turk-
mains, and Ikhtiyar-ud-Din is also said to have been killed. Now if the former
only numbered 400 men, each man must have killed thirty on the average, and
this they could scarcely have accomplished in the time, even had the Turkmans
lain down quietly to be butchered like sheep, which they probably did not do.
The whole 12,000 must have come by precisely the same road, just at the pro-
pitious time, and when the 400 Mughals had just finished the preceding de-
tachment ; and of course, in the stilly night, the cries and shouts, groans and
screams, and the clash of arms could not be heard, and close to their khels too.
All this is gross exaggeration, although contained in the Jahan-Kushie, the
Rauzat-us-Safa, and several other pro-Mughal works. Having thus broken
the back of their strength, the Mughals, next day, made for the encampments
where were the families of the Turkmans, and early in the morning fell upon
them and slew the whole—with the exception of some, who, while the slaughter
was going on, threw themselves into the river of Marw, hoping to escape, and
perished—male and female, young and old—who were butchered, to the number
of 70,000 souls! Now, at this rate of 400 men, each individual Mughal
must, on the average, have killed, during the night and following day, just
230 souls, which is as incredible as it is ridiculous to expect any sane person to
believe it, and, even assuming that these barbarian butchers numbered 4000,
each one must have slain, on the average, thirty-two persons. Taking the
fighting men at 12,000, and the average number of each family at from five to
six persons, each furnishing one fighting man, 70,000 is net beyond the mark.
The Mughals captured likewise 60,000 quadrupeds—oxen and camels — besides
innumerable sheep, and proceeded to join व्या camp.

This account reads like a page out of Mr. Eugene Schuyler’s work, or a leaf
from the annals of the ‘‘ Christian” and ‘“‘knightly warfare” in Asia Minor
and European Turkey in 1878: the Turkmans of that day, like the Turkmans
of this, were treated a /2 Kaufmann, and the whole proceedings were carried
out in true “‘ Circassian style.”” I would observe here, however, with respect
to some strange theories respecting the origin of the name “ TURKOMEN,” in
the ^ Geographical Magazine,” for 1875, page 151, that there would be some
difficulty to find such a word in any oriental writer whoscever.

. The day after this fearful slaughter, which is said to have taken place on the
Ist of Muharram [which must be an error for the rith or 2151, as Tali was
only despatched early in that month], 618 H. [25th February, 1221 a.p.], Tuli
Khan, with his army arrived, and took upa position opposite the Shahristanah
Gateway, which is mentioned in the “ MASALIK WA MAMALIK ” as situated
hear the great masjid, and commenced to assail the place. The Maj ir-ul-

1032 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
razed the walls of the city, and, having had a pair of oxen

Mulk, who had made great preparations for its defence, distributed his trea-
sures liberally among the troops, and used to send forth large bodies of men to
make sallies upon the Mughals, in such wise, that, on the first day, in the course
of one hour, more than 1000 Mughals were slain. Here it will be remarked how
large bodies of Turks and Tajziks only kill 10०० Mughals, in about the time
that 400 Mughals, by the writer’s account, would cut up a whole host.

At this show of resistance, Tili, next day, attacked the place in person, at
the head of 22,000 Mughals—but the Rauzat-ug-Safa says, an army in num-
bers beyond all computation—and inflicted great slaughter on the defenders ;
and, in this manner, from morn to eve, for a period of twenty-two days, the
fighting went on. The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir, Habib-us-Siyar, and Jahin,
Kushie, say the fighting only lasted for seven days, and that on the eighth
the Majir-ul-Mulk sent to beg for quarter, but this statement is much the same
as that of the goo horsemen slaughtering 12,000 Turkman soldiers and 70,000
of their people.

In the meantime, the vast population of Marw became redtced to great
straits, and began to say among themselves, that there was no hope of resisting
the Mughals. Besides this, many persons from Balkh, Samrkand, Bukhari,
Kbhwirazm, and other places captured by the Mughals, had taken shelter in
Marw ; and these fugitives persuaded the Marwazis that the city must surely be
captured at last, and that it was better to seek an accommodation, and thus
prevent the shedding of torrents of Musalman blood. On the twenty-third day,
therefore, the Majir-ul-Mulk was prevailed upon to despatch the Imim,
Jamal-ud-Din, the chief ecclesiastic, who, attended by a body of the priest-
hood, came out of Marw, and sought the presence of Tali Khan. After एल
senting befitting pesh-kash, the Imam offered, if the conqueror would promise
to spare the lives of the inhabitants, and not destroy the city, to pay a ransom
of 200,000 dinars, 30,000 £kar-wars of grain, 100,000 ambling horses, and 100
Hindi and Turk slaves, to receive a Mughal Shahnah or Intendant, and pay
yearly taxes into the Khin’s treasury. Tiili accepted these offers, a dress of
honour was conferred upon the Imam and those with him, and he was sent
back to the city with that Khan’s reply. The next day, the Majir-ul-Mulk,
attended by ten of his principal officers, placing faith in the word of a Mughal
prince, and taking with him valuable offerings of all descriptions, came out of
Marw, and proceeded to the audience tent of Tuli Khan. On his reaching
the entrance, he was stopped by the Amirs of Tiili—the matter, of course,
had been previously arranged—and he was required to give an assignment of
300 4har-wars—each computed at an ass’s load—of dindrs as an offering to the
Badshah-Zadah [Twili Khan], and another 100,000 dindrs for themselves, 02
the wealthy people of the city, on which they would obtain from Tali Khan a
written deed of security for the lives of the inhabitants ; and this they swore
most solemnly to observe according to the rites of their belief. Willing to save
the people, and again trusting the perfidious Mughals, the Majir-ul-Mulk, at once,
gave an assignment on 100 great merchants of the city; and sent a person of his
own, with a party of Mughals, to receive the amount. The Mughals went and
brought back with them the persons named, and, with the aid of the rack and other
tortures, succeeded in extorting the money; and, besides these unfortunate,
nearly 10,000 other persons were tortured to death. After this, the Majir-ul-
Mulk was mutilated by having his ears, nose, and lips cut off—the fashion of the
‘* Sag-lab”’ Montenegrin and Bulgarian ‘‘ heroes” of the present day—and thea

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1033

yoked [to a plough], he had them driven over [the area on

put todeath. Orders were then issued by this fiend in human form to destroy
the city, and massacre the inhabitants) The Mughals poured in, and con-
tinued to expel the inhabitants, whom they drove out into the plain. Four
days were occupied in separating the males from the females, and then, after
the selection of a few young females for captivity, and about 400 artisans, the
whole of the remainder were butchered, and not a soul was left alive.

By the generality of writers it is said, that some 300 or 400 victims fell to
the share of each Mughal butcher ; and, although the number seems incre-
dible, when we consider that the people of other cities were fugitives at Marw,
and that the inhabitants of the towns and villages near had taken shelter within
the walls, it is doubtless correct. The Sayyid, ’Izz-ud-Din of Nisa, and a
number of clerks, were occupied during thirteen days and nights in recording
the number of the slain, and the number, without accounting such as it was
impossible to recognize, belonging to the city and neighbouring villages alone,
it is said, amounted to a little over 1,300,000 souls. See page 281.

After this, the walls and defences of this great city, after it had been
thoroughly sacked, were demolished, and in such wise ‘‘that scarce a trace of
it was left ; and for a period of two hundred and nine years its desolation was
such that its site did not afford sufficient shade for a wild beast,” after which,
in 812 प्र. , through the favour of Sultan Shah-Rukh, the son of Amir Timir,
the Girgan, the city was rebuilt.

Tuli Khan now bent his steps towards Nishabiir ; and, according to the
Jahan-Kughae, when he had proceeded two marches on his way, fearing, pro-
bably, that enough blood had not been shed, with the instinct of a fiend, sent
back a body of 2000 horse to slay all who might have crept out of holes and
comers since his departure ; and about 10,000 persons more were, in this wise,
massacred. The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir, however, states that, after sacking
Marw, Tali Khan nominated the Amir, Ziya-ud-Din, ’Ali, one of its great
men, who had been spared because he had retired previously from public life,
and was dwelling in seclusion,to proceed thither, and remain there as governor
of the desolated city and its dependencies, along with a Mughal Daroghah or
Overseer, named Barmas—also styled Barmas and Barmias—over such of the
inhabitants as might, from holes and corners, and other places of concealment,
return to the city.

After the departure of the Mughal army towards Nighabiir, about 5000
fugitives once more assembled, but their cup of misery was not yet full. A
body of Mughals, who subsequently arrived there on their way to join Tulf,
desired to have their share of slaughter, and so they required that every person
in the place should bring out a skirt full of grain forthem. By this stratagem
all who did so were massacred ; and this same detachment slew all they met
with on the road to Nighabiir. Soon after another body of Mughals, who had
Separated from the Nii-yan Jabah [Yamah] arrived, and they also put to death
all who chanced to come in their way.

There was still more misfortune in store for Marw. Some time after, an
outbreak of Musalmans against the Mughals took place at Sarakhs, and the
Amir, Ziya-ud-Din, ’Ali, set out to suppress it, and the Mughal, Barmas, or
Barmias, the Overseer, moved outside Marw, with his following, taking with
him the artificers and mechanics of the place, with the object, in case of need,
of retiring to Bukhara. Those left within Marw imagined that he had heard
news of the Sultan, Jalal-ud-Din’s arrival, and that he was preparing to fly.

3 U

1034 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

which] the city [stood], in such wise that not a vestige of
the buildings thereof remained.’ Having finished with

They accordingly rose, and began to express their joy thereat by beating
drums. Barmas came to the gate, and requested the chief men remaining
among the inhabitants to attend him, but no one obeyed, on which he had all
such as he met with outside slaughtered, and then retired hastily towards
Bukhara.

Amir Ziya-ud-Din, ’Ali, returned soon after, and set about repairing the
walls and the citadel ; and people assembled around him from the vicinity, and
other more distant places, but an officer of the late Sultan’s, the Pahlawan
Niish-Tigin—called Kish-Tigin by some—had gathered a considerable णि.
lowing under his standard, and arrived before Marw, and invested it. Ziya-
ud-Din, ’Ali, finding it impossible to remain, succeeded, by stealth, in leaving
the city with his Mughal party, as the investment was but partial, took to
flight, and entered the fort of Murghah. Niish-Tigin now set to work to
repair some part of the city, and to cultivate the land, but a faction secretly
communicated with Ziya-ud-Din, ’Ali, and incited him to return. He did so,
and appeared with a force, and took up a position before the place. Niish-
Tigin sent a body of his followers, who took Amir Ziya-ud-Din, ’Ali, and
brought him before him, who, finding that he himself must perish or Ziya-ud-
Din, ’Alf, he had him put to death ; and, with a heart at ease, set about his
restoration of the city, and putting it in a state of defence. Three or four
days only elapsed when a body of 2000 Mughal horse, on their way to join the
Nii-yan, Fiki, finding how matters stood, one half went away on their duty, as
ordered previously, leaving the remainder to watch the place. News was then
despatched to Nakhshab, to the Mughal officers there stationed, acquainting
them with the assemblage of a number of people at Marw again ; and, after five
days, two chiefs, Turbae [Turlae ?] and Ak Malik [a Musalman Turk—it was
Mughal policy to employ Mughals and Musalmans in concert], with a body of
5000 Mughals, appeared, who penetrated into the city, and are said to have
slain 100,000 people more [more likely 10,000], who had again assembled
there, the different quarters of the city having been assigned to different
detachments of this force for the purpose of hunting up and destroying all
whom they could find. Turbae [Turtée], with the principal part of the
Mughals, then departed, but Ak Malik was left behind to search for other
victims supposed to be in hiding. Every stratagem that was conceivable was
adopted to draw them forth; and the last one, which was but too successful,
was, that one of the party, a Musalman of Nakhshab, was made to pronounce
the call to prayer, upon which welcome sound the poor wretches issued forth
from holes and cellars to be put to the sword, and in such wise that but twelve
persons—some say only four—and no more, were left alive in Marw, and
these, according to the Rauzat-ug-Safa, were Hindiis !

9 Having left Amir Ziya-ud-Din, ’Ali, in charge of what remained of
Marw, Tili moved towards Nishabir, in order, says Alfi, ‘to avenge the
Girgan, Taghachar, previously killed in Khurasin.” In advance, he
despatched a great part of his army with the war engines and materials for
carrying on a siege ; and, although Nishabiir is situated in a stony tract of
country, nevertheless, he brought along with him, from a distance of several
marches, so many loads of stone that they lay in great heaps all round the
place. Not a tithe of them were used, for the inhabitants, perceiving the
hand of the Almighty in what was taking place, and that this was a fresh

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1035

them [the inhabitants], and the city, and territory, पी

army, greater in magnitude than the previous one, notwithstanding the vast
preparations they had made for defence, as previously narrated, became dis-
heartened, and so no other remedy remained than to despatch the Kazi-i-
Mamilik, Rukn-ud-Din, ’Ali, son of Ibrahim, to the presence of Tili. On
reaching his quarters, which was a considerable distance from the place, the
Kizi besought security for the lives of the inhabitants, and tendered submission
and payment of tribute, but all was of no avail, and he was dismissed. On
Wednesday, the 12th [in some, the 2nd] of Safar, 618 H., early in the morn-
ing, the attack commenced, and was persisted in until the afternoon of the
Friday, during which time, also, the Mughals had dammed up the water in
the ditch in several places, so as to cause breaches in the walls. They then
renewed the attack on all sides with greater vigour than before, and effected a
lodgment on the top of the walls, where they were as bravely resisted ; but the
defenders were being gradually forced back. A lodgment had also been
effected near the Sher-ban gate; and, during the Friday night, the walls and
bastions became crowded with Mughals. On the following day they poured
in through the gates, and began their work of plunder and massacre, while the
people were still resisting at every favourable point. The Mughals made
search for the Majir-ud-Din [the Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Nigim-ud-Din, probably.
See note >, page 990, para. 11], and at last dragged him forth, and he, to
make them put him speedily out of pain, was reviling and defying them, and
they put him to death in the basest manner possible. Alfi says the defence
was carried on for eight days, during which great numbers perished on both
sides, and, on the ninth day, the city was taken by assault.

The remainder of the inhabitants were now, as customary, driven out into
the open country outside the city and slaughtered ; for it was directed, in order
to avenge the death of the Giirgin, Taghachar, that Nishabir should be
utterly destroyed, and no living creature, not even a dog or cat, was to be left
alive. The daughter of the Chingiz Khan, the Khiatiin of Taghachar, with
her own followers, afterwards [not before. The idea of her ‘leading the
avenging force at the head of 10,000 men,” as stated in the ‘* Mongols Proper,”
is as absurd as the idea of ‘‘ cutting off all the heads, and making separate heaps
of men’s, women’s, and children’s heads ”’] entered the place, and caused all that
could be found, and any who might have crept out of concealment, to be
slaughtered. Only forty—not so many as four hundred—who were mechanics
and artisans, were allowed to escape, and they were carried off to Turkistan ;
and in the time of Amir Timir their descendants were still dwelling there.
The walls, towers, and all the buildings of Nishabir were thrown down, and for
seven days and nights the water of the neighbouring river, which had been
dammed up for the purpose, was made to run over it, so as to sap whatever
buildings remained—the greater number of houses were probably built of
unburnt bricks—and bullocks and ploughs were brought, and its site was sown
with barley, and the Mughal horses [some of them ?] fed with it when it
sprang up. One Mughal officer and four Tajziks were left there to slay any
persons who might have escaped the general massacre !

It is stated in the Tarikh-i-Khurasan, quoted by some of my authorities,
that it took twelve days to number the slain, and that, without enumerating
women and children, and such as could not be accounted for, the number
recorded was 1,747,000 souls. With respect to this immense, and almost
incredible, number of persons said to have been butchered by the Mughal

3U 2

1036 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

advanced towards Hirat,' and pitched his camp before the

barbarians, we must understand that the people of the open country always
sought shelter within the walled cities and towns. This fact, no doubt, tended
to hamper their garrisons, and, from the quantity of food required for their
subsistence, caused the early surrender of many very strong places that, other-
wise, would have held out like the fortresses of Ghir and Gharjistan, as our
author so graphically relates farther on.

1 The next movement of Tilt Khan was against Hirdt. On reaching the
verdant plain of Shabartii near that city, he despatched an agent, naméd Zan-
bir, demanding that the Amir who was governor on the part of Sultin Jalal-
ud-Din, and the Kazi, the Khatib, and chief men of the city of Hirat, should
come out and wait on him, and submit to the Mughal sovereign, and secure
protection for their lives and property, lest the fate of Marw and Nishabiir
might be theirs also. The governor, Amir Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the
Jiizjani, and other Maliks therein, on hearing of the advance of the Mughals,
had prepared to make a determined resistance, and all the approaches and
defences were strongly guarded. The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir, Raugat-us-Safa, and
Hafig Abri, state, that there were 100,000 troops at that time in Hirat, but this
is mere exaggeration for the glorification of the Mughals, as the sequel shows
the contrary to have been the fact, but there certainly was a strong force there.
When the envoy from Tuli Khan appeared before Amir Shams-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad, and delivered his message, he forthwith ordered him to be put to
death, saying at the same time: ‘‘ Let not that day come for me to be subject to
Mughal and Tattar infidels while breath remains in my body!” Next day,
when intimation reached Tili of the fate of his envoy, he was greatly enraged,
and directed the troops to take up positions round about the city, and to slay
every Harawi Tajzik they could meet with.

For a period of seven days Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, opposed
the Mughals with great valour, and inflicted heavy loss upon them, among
those killed being several of the principal Amirs, and 1700 others of lesser note,
besides common men. On the eighth day Tili led the Mughals in person to
the attack, and Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, sallied out, at the head of
a large force, to encounter him, and an engagement ensued which was carried
on with great obstinacy. The Mughals were so severely handled at last, that
they were nearly giving way, when an arrow struck Malik Shams-ud-Din,
Muhammad, and he fell from his horse, and then and there expired.

His fall caused division within the city, and the people became separated
into two parties—those who were devotedly loyal to Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and
the soldiery, who were for vigorous resistance to the last, while the civi-
lians, such as the Kazi and the ecclesiastics, the priesthood holding grants of
land, and those to whom trade and their own selfish interests were all and
everything, and patriotism nothing, who were for accommodation ; and it will
be noticed that, throughout these misfortunes, such persons invariably caused
resistance to be abandoned, or they betrayed their people and their sovereign’s
interest for their own ends,

In the meantime, Tili Khan, who had taken a great fancy to Hirit, and
liked its climate and situation, did not wish to desolate it like other cities [and
who, doubtless, had information of the state of affairs within, and the resistance
likely to be offered], and whose ranks had been thinned, and were then drawn
up facing the Firiizi—some say Firiiz-abad—gateway, which, according to the
‘* MASALIK WA MAMALIK,” was the most flourishing quarter of Hirit, rode
forward on the ninth day, with 200 horse, to the edge of the ditch, and
requested a parley. Then, removing his head-dress [some say helmet, others

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1037

gate of that city, and the attack began, and catapults were
placed in position in every direction.’

turban, but neither correctly], he called out: ‘*O! men of Hirat ! know ye
that Iam Tilt, the son of the Chingiz Khan ; and, if ye desire to save your lives,
and those of your women and children, from the hands of the Mughals, cease
from aJl further resistance, and submit, and I will agree that ye pay into my
coffers one-half the amount of taxes [417 says, ‘‘the same amount to my de-
puties ”] ye have been paying to your Sultans.” These words he accompanied
with most solemn oaths and promises, that no injury should befall them, if they
ceased fighting and opened the gates. Hearing these words from the mouth
of Tuli Khan himself, it was agreed to submit to his authority. This is what,
in the ‘‘ Afongols Proper,” becomes ९१ it offered to capitulate.”

In the first place, ’Izz-ud-Din, the Harawi, who, by command of the Sultan,
was the Mukaddam, or Provost of the guild of weavers and manufactories—with
100 persons of his craft, each bearing nine pieces [the Mughal fortunate number]
of silks of various kinds, and of great price, for which Hirat was famous—it
still is for a kind styled £andzvez— proceeded to the presence of Tuli, and after
them followed the chief officials and men of the city. They were all well received ;
but, as though it were impossible for a Mughal to keep his plighted word, 12,000
persons, the soldiers and dependants of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, were massacred
to a man, but to the other inhabitants, whom they had defended and for whom
they had shed their blood, no further molestation was offered, and the Mughals
acquired vast booty. Misery enough was, however, in store for the Harawis.

After the surrender, Amir Abi-Bikr-i-Maraghani [see note on the Kurat
dynasty, farther on] was left there as Governor of Hirat and its dependencies,
and a Mughal, named Mangatiae, also written Mangatie and Mangie, a
favourite attendant of Tiili’s, was left with him as Shabnah or Intendant. The
former set about remedying the distracted state of affairs, ruled justly, and
endeavoured to restore the province to its former prospenty, and put the city
in repair. तां Khan, according to his father’s commands, set out [Alfi says,
in 609 R. = 619 H., but this is not correct: it was 618 H.] on his return eight
days after the surrender, and joined the Chingiz Khan in his camp near Tal-
kan of Khurasan, which he had not yet taken.

During this expedition under Tili Khan, besides Marw, Nishabir, Hirat,
Tus, and Sabzwar, other cities and towns and their dependencies, such as
Jajurm, Nisa, Abiward, Sarakhs, Khowaf, and other places in Khurasan, fell
under the yoke of the Mughals, which is referred to in the metrical account of
the Mughals before noticed, in the following words, ‘‘than which,” as an
author says, ‘‘the Dari tongue furnishes no terms more forcibly expressing the
fearful calamities caused by the Mughals,” referring to the words contained in
the first line of the second couplet :—

mew 79 ७ sem el OS ७~ sete 595 9. ५.
Sym 45 1. a PY eed adil Spt 9 Sy 9 ५.42 3 at
‘ In three months, the world-seizing Tuli

Captured these all to the gate of Sistan.

He razed and he slew, and he swept and he clutched ;
Not a person remained, neither great nor small.”

Whilst these events were happening at Hirat, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din had upon
several occasions overthrown the Mughals, as related under the reign of that
hero, at page 288, and note 3, and farther on.

2 Those who consider the Muscov a lamb may take a lesson from these
identical places—Marw and Elirat.

1038 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Jurjani, and
Malik Taj-ud-Din, the Jizjani,> and other Amirs who
were within the city, made preparations for resistance ; but
trustworthy persons have related after this manner, that
the stone of every catapult, which they used to discharge
from the city in the direction of the Mughal camp, used to
go into the air, and again descend into the city.

The city of Hirat which Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm
Shah, sat down before, and, before which, he carried on
hostilities for a period of eleven months‘ before it was
surrendered to him, the Mughals took up a position before,
and, in the space of eight months, they captured that place
which [in strength] was the barrier of Sikandar, and mar-
tyred the whole of the inhabitants [with few exceptions].
Persons, whose statements are to be depended upon, relate,
that, in one quarter [part] of the city,600,000 martyrs were
counted. According to this proportion, in the whole four
quarters of the city, twenty-four /aks [2,400,000 !] Musal-
mans were martyred. May the Almighty reward them !°*

When Tili came to the determination of returning, he
set at liberty some of those captives, and gave them a
Shahnah [Intendant] and left him there, and commanded
him to restore the city.

ANECDOTE,

An anecdote,’ worthy of insertion here, is related, 25 re-
ferring to the occurrences which happened at the period in

3 The other is styled Kazwini in one or two copies, but Jiizjani may be the
most correct after all The Rauzat-ug-Safa also has Jizjani. +

+ See page 259, and note 3,

$ Our author has fallen into complete confusion, and has here entered the
events of the second siege, while, in his account of the latter, at page 1048, he
has introduced some events belonging to the former siege. The greater part of
this paragraph and the next relates to the second siege with which Tuli Khan
had nothing to do.

6 This anecdote refers to the attack on Hirat by Tali Khan, the particulars
of which have just been given. It has been stolen by the author of the Raugat-
us-Safa without acknowledgment, indeed he pretends—such is, too often, the
conduct of some unprincipled writers—to have obtained it from the Kagl,
from whose lips our author heard it, and merely says: ‘‘ /¢ is stated by the
Kazi of Charjistan,” and then uses our author’s own words, without acknow-
ledgment. Such pirates, after they have pilfered from another’s writings
generally turn round and abuse him.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1039

question. In the year 622 H., the author of this TABAKAT,
Minhaj-i-Saraj, who is the servant of the Sultan’s dynasty,
had occasion to undertake a journey, on a mission from
Ghir towards the Kuhistan, at the request of the august
Malik, Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’Usman, the Mara-
ghani’—may he rest in peace !—for the adjustment of the
route of karwans [of merchants and travellers], and the
tranquillity of this territory. When he [the author] reached
the city of Ka’in, he there saw an Imam, one of the great
men of Khuradsan, whom they were wont to style Kazi
Wahid-ud-Din, the Bishanji [of Bishanj or Fishanj|—the
Almighty’s mercy be upon him! That Imam related
[saying], “In the disaster of Hirat I was present in that
city; and, every day, in conjunction with the Ghazis
{holy-warriors], its defenders, I used to don arms and
armour, and proceed to the top of the ramparts, and view
the multitude of the forces. One day, I was at the top of
the ramparts of the city of Hirat while the fight and tumult
was going on, in full panoply, with helmet and cuirass, be-
sides other things, when, suddenly, I missed my footing
from the top of the walls, and fell down towards the ditch,
and, like unto a stone or a ball, I went rolling down the
face of the £hak-rez, whilst 50,000 men, Mughals and
Musalman renegades, with arrows fitted to their bows, and
with stones, were aiming at me, until, rolling over and over,
I fell into the midst of the infidels, and was made prisoner
by a body of men who, in making the attack, had come to
the foot of the parapet, and the face of the £4ak-res, and
descended into the ditch. This mischance happened to me
at a point facing which Tili, son of the Chingiz Khan, had
had a tent pitched, at the edge of the ditch, and the
Mughal troops were fighting under his personal observa-
tion. Although I came rolling down the face of the £hak-rez
a distance of about twenty gaz [ells], until I descended into
the abyss of the ditch, which was forty gaz more,’ Almighty

7 A well-known race or family, one of whom—Abi-Bikr-i-Maraghani—was
left by Tali Khan as governor of the city and its dependencies, along with
Mangatie, the Mughal Intendant. See the note on the Kurat Dynasty, under
the account of the downfall of the Mulahidah, farther on. ।

8 An artificial mound, surrounding Hirat, and forming its chief strength.

See following note.
9 The description of modern Ilirat will give some faint idea of what it was

1040 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL. |

God shielded me under his protection so that I experienced
no wound, neither did any of my members sustain any hurt
or fracture whatever.

“When I came to the ground he [चा] caused a party to
run up with speed, telling them: ‘Bring ye that person
alive, and do not harm him in the least.’ When, in ac-
cordance with. that command, they conducted me to the
presence of Tiili, he looked at me searchingly, and gave
orders to them, saying : ‘See whether he has received any
hurt ;’ and, as there was none, he said to me: ‘ What
person art thou—of the race of Adam, or a pari, a demon,
or an angel, or dost thou hold a charm bearing the names
of the Ulugh Tingri?' Speak truly, how it is’ I bowed
my face to the ground and replied: ‘I am an unfortunate
man of the learned class, and one of those who blesses
or prays; but I had one thing with me.’ He said:
‘What hadst thou with thee?’ I bowed my head to the
ground, and replied: ‘The sight of a sovereign like thee
had fallen upon me, and through the felicity thereof, I re-
mained in safety.’ This reply was favourably received by
Tili, and he looked upon me with favourable eyes, and
remarked, saying : ‘ This person is a sagacious man, and a
wise, and may be qualified for the service of the Chingiz
Khan. It is necessary that ye take care of him in order
that he may be conducted to his presence ;’ and he com-
manded so that they made me over to the care of one of
the respected Mughals.

“ After Tilt had completed the conquest of the cities and
districts of Khurasan, he took me along with him to the
Chingiz Khan’s presence,’ and related the story [to him],
and in the Chingiz Khan’s service I found great favour.
I was constantly in attendance at his threshold, and he
used continually to inquire of me the traditions of the pro-
phets, and concerning the sovereigns of ’Ajam, and the

in its strength and glory at the period in question. It is entirely enclosed by
an artificial mound of earth between fifty and sixty feet in height, at the present
time, the walls rising about thirty feet above. This mound slopes down from
“the base of the rampart, at an angle of about forty or forty-five degrees, and at
the bottom of the mound is a deep wet ditch thirty feet wide.

1 The Great Spirit—God.

3 Before Tal-kan of Khurasan, which the Chingiz Khan had not yet suc-
ceeded in capturing. See page 1008, and note ©.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1041

kings of the past; and would inquire: ‘Did Muhammad
(on whom be peace !), foretell aught respecting my rise and
sway?’ I used to relate to him the traditions [of the
Prophet] which they have related respecting the irruption
of the Turk ;* and he used to say: ‘My heart bears
evidence that thou speakest the truth, until one day,
during conversation, he said to me: ‘A mighty name will
remain behind me in the world through taking vengeance
upon Muhammad, the Aghri’—that is to say, he used to
call Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, by this term,
and, in the Turki language, aghri* signifies a robber—and
this expression he would greatly make use of and say :—
‘Khwarazm Shah was not a monarch: he was a robber.
Had he been a monarch he would not have slain my
envoys and traders who had come to Utrar, for kings
should not slay ambassadors.’ In short, when he inquired
of me, ‘ Will not a mighty name remain behind me?’
1 bowed my face to the ground, and said; ‘If the Khan
will promise the safety of my life, I will make a remark.’
He replied : ‘I have promised thee its security.’ I said:
‘A name continues to endure where there are people, but
how will a name endure when the Khan’s servants martyr
all the people and massacre them, for who will remain
to tell the tale?’ When I finished this sentence, the
Chingiz Khan dashed the bow and arrow which he had in
his hand upon the ground, and became exceeding en-
raged, and turned his face away from me, and his back
towards me. When I beheld the effects of rage upon his
impious brow, I washed my hands of life, and gave up all
hope of existence. I made sure to myself that the time of
my departure was come, and that I should leave the world
from the blow of the sword of this accursed one.

“After a minute had passed away, he turned his face
towards me again, and said: ‘I used to consider thee a
Sagacious and prudent man, but, from this speech of thine,

* Here again is another proof of what I have stated in my account of the
descent of the Turks and of the i-maks of Tattar and Mughal. Had the Kazi,
incorrectly, said by mistake, ‘‘the outbreak of the Tattars,” the Chingiz Khan
would, no doubt, have taken it as an insult, but he was a Turk of the Mughal
i-mak. See note >, page 869, and para, at page 875.

+ In some copies ‘‘the Mughali.” The Printed Text has— s!—aghzi,
but all others are as above.

1042 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

it has become evident to me that thou dost not possess
complete understanding, and that thy comprehension is
but small. There are many kings in the world, and, where-
ever the hoofs of the horses of Muhammad, the Aghri,
have reached, there I will carry slaughter and cause devas-
tation. The remaining people who are in other parts of
the world, and the sovereigns of other kingdoms that are,
they will relate my history.’ No favour on the part of the
Chingiz Khan remained to me, and it came about that |
was distant from his presence; and I fled from the Mughal
army,and made my escape, and returned thanks and praise
unto Almighty God for the same.”

ACCOUNT OF THE CALAMITIES WHICH BEFELL THE
TERRITORY OF KHURASAN THE SECOND TIME.

After Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, Khwarazm Shah,
overthrew the army of Mughals, on the confines of Barwan,
between Bamian and Ghaznin,® several times, and the
Chingiz Khan turned his face towards Sultan Jalal-ud-Din,
Mang-barni, and advanced towards the river of Sind, and
the news of these victories [of the Sultan] reached all the
cities of Khurdsan, in every city and town wherever the
Mughal Shahnahs [Intendants] were stationed, the people
thereof despatched the whole of them to hell, and in every
place a predominant person arose. After the Chingiz
Khan defeated Sultan Jalal-ud-Din on the banks of the
river of Sind, he despatched the Bahadur, Sha’ir,’ along
with Uktae [his son] to Ghaznin, so that they destroyed

’ This shows, were any proof wanting, that our author did not refer to the
narrow Parwan valley, north of Kabul, but to a locality much farther south-west
The author of the Raugat-us-Safa here repeats what he has stated several
times before, in other places, that it is Barwin, a place between Ghaznin and
Bamian. As I have said before, the situation of Barwan was near the sources
of the Lohgar river. See note 8, page 288, note ५, page 1008, and note ५

page 1016.
6 It was this that caused the second siege, and the utter desolation of

Hirat, the Hiratis having slain the Mughal Shabnah and the Musalman
governor, the Maraghani. Here again it will be observed that there is 10
mention either of Bamian or of its long siege.

7 In one or two copies, Sa-iir.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1043

the city of Ghaznin,? and brought forth the inhabitants
without the city, and, with the exception of a few, who
were made captives, martyred the whole of them.

The Chingiz Khan, himself, advanced from the banks of
the Sind river in pursuit of the Ighraki*® Musalmans, who
formed a very large force, and a countless number of men,
and proceeded towards Gibari.! He took the fortress of

9 It has never recovered to this day from the effects of this calamity like
many other famous and formerly densely populous cities of Asia.
9 Some modern copies of the text have wls—’Arab—here.

1 This word is written Gabari— s,S—Gibari—.s,.o—and Girl, 5”

the different copies of the text, but the best and oldest copies have Gabari or
Gibari. The Calcutta printed text has both कक and y,S In MSS., the
point of the letter 4 often appears as two, close together, occasioned by the
[कण points of the reed, especially when there is not much ink in it, and vice
versa. The letter might, in consequence, be sometimes mistaken for 27,

Baihaki and the Gardaizi continually refer to the fort of Giri— s,5S—as
being near the Sind or Indus [possibly Kapir di Girt. See note 3, page 76],
but the former invariably mentions it in connexion with ‘‘ Parshawar” or
“‘Purghor,” ‘‘ Man-Manarah,” and ‘‘ Wahind.” Man-Manarah is evidently
Prata’h Mandra’h on the west bank of the Indus above Atak, and the words
are, apparently, the Pushto translation of an older name, frata’h signifying
“fallen,” ‘* overturned,” &c., qualifying a feminine noun. Sultan Mas’id,
the Martyr, was confined in the fortress of Girl. See page 95. ,

The tract referred to by our author, however, is, without doubt, the country
north of the Kabul river, between the Kaman, or river of Kunay, and the
Landey Sind, namely, Bajawy and the tracts forming its southern boundary ;
and I find, in an old geographical work, and in a Persian lexicon of old and
dificult words, that Gabar—,S—with the pronunciation written, is the
name of a town [shahr] in the country of Bajawr. To have come upon the
Ighraks, the Mughals must have entered Nangrahar, or, as it was anciently
called, Nek-Anhiar, lying south of Bajawy ; and the Chingiz Khan was never
in * Pakli,” in his life, nor in Pakla’i either.

The people inhabiting the tracts lying along the banks of the river of
Kabul, and east even as far as the Indus, were sometimes styled by the general
name of Shalmani by the Afghan chroniclers, and Dihgan by the Tajziks,
but Elphinstone styles them by the fanciful name of ‘‘ Swatis.” They were a
purely Tajzik race, and had become converts to Islam at an early period.
On the northern bank of the Kabul river there was another race of people
who are known up to very recent times under the name of ’Arab ~s—re.
specting whom some account will be found in my ‘‘ NOTES ON AFGHANISTAN
AND PART OF BALUCHISTAN, GEOGRAPHICAL, ETHNOLOGICAL, AND HIs-
TORICAL,” printed by command of the Rt. Hon. the Secretary of State for India.

These Tajzik people were no more ‘‘Scythians,” than the Musalman
Dilazik Afghans were ‘‘ Buddhists,” as Surgeon-Major Bellew, C.S.1.,
styles them in one of his books, and ‘‘ Rajputs ” in another, or than the
Kakar Afghans are the ‘‘ Gakar tribe of Indians in the north Panjab,” or than
the Kihtran Afghans, whom he styles A/afrini in his last book, are ‘‘ Khatir
Hindus.”

1044 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Gibari and other forts of the territory of the Koh-payah
[hill-skirts], and slew the Musalmans. For a period of

The fort of Gibarf or Gabari appears to be the very same as Gabar-kot,
which the Mughal Badghih, Babar, subsequently took from Mir Haidar, the
Gabart. The Shalmanis, with whom the Yiisufzis and Mandags, of the
Khak’hi division of the Afghan nation, first came into contact, when they, in
after years, retired from Kabul into Nangrahiar, were divided into three septs
or divisions :—Gabari [not from Gabr, a fire-worshipper: it is a different
word], Mutrawi, and Mumiali. Their rulers were descendants of the Jahan-
girian Sultans—Sultan Bahram and Sultan Pakhal—who held all the country
north of the Kabul river, from the Tag-do river to the Pir-Pinjal mountains
of Kashmir, east of the Indus, and likewise some parts on the southern side
of the Kabul river as far south as the Spin Ghar or Safed Koh, but their
power had greatly declined. Sultan Awes was the Gabari Sultan of Suwit
at that period, and was the last king of that territory and its dependencies,
but he retired northwards before the power of the Yiisufzis and Mandars,
towards the sources of the Amiiah or Oxus. He, and his descendants, for
several generations, ruled therein as far as the frontier of Badakhshian, after
which they are suddenly lost sight of. The great probability is that the rulers
of Chitral, Kiashkar, Shighnin, Wakhan, and some other petty states on the
upper Oxus, are their descendants ; and, like them, they claim descent from
Alexander of Macedon.

In the time of the Akhiind, Darwezah, some of the descendants of these
Jahangirian Sultans of Pich, as they are called, were still dwelling in
Nangrahar, at the town of Papin in particular, and the Akhiind himself, on
the mother’s side, was descended from Sultan Bahram. He gives the names
of twelve direct generations of Chiefs and Sultans as far back as Sultan Shams.
I hope to be able to enter into details of this interesting subject shortly, but a
good deal respecting the geography of these parts, and practical routes, will
be found in my accounts of Suwat, Kashkar, Chitral, Kafiristan, and the
Independent Afghan States, and also of Yarkand and Kashghar, in the
Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, as far back as 1856, which contain
many geographical details, which have since been discovered by ^“ Havildars”
and ‘‘ Mullas,” and appropriated by one or two literary vampires.

Khushhal Khan, the celebrated Poet, and Chief of the Afghan tribe of
Khetak, in one of his poems on Suwat, which I have quoted in my account of
that valley, in the Journal above mentioned, refers to some of the many routes
leading into Turkistan from the tract in which the Chingiz Khan was encamped,
and one of which he evidently intended to take, in the following manner :

“ There is a road leading into Turkistan by Hindii-koh,
And another that leads into Chitral and Badakhshan,
Another route also leads to Butan and Kashghar,
And there is one more that goes to Morang—up hill and down dale.”

A few of these Gibaris are, I believe, still to be found in the districts re-
ferred to.

In the KASHGHAR MIssIon HisTory, Surgeon-Major Bellew states [p. 142]
that ‘‘His route was probably across the Swat country into the Kiunar [sic]
valley, where Chaghan Sarde, or ‘white hostelry,’ from its name attests
Moghol occupation, and thence up the Chitral [sic] valley called also Kashkar,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1045

three months he halted in the Gibari territory and the
Koh-payah ; and, from thence, the Chingiz Khan de-
spatched envoys to the presence of the august Sultan,
Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, I-yal-timish—May he rest in

through the easy Burogil Pass. . . , , Such, at least, is the route taken by
part of his army, if not by Changiz himself, who, according to the author of
the Zadcdti Nasiri (a personal actor at Tolak in the defence against his inva-
sion of Ghor), rejoined his camp with the heavy baggage left at Naman
Pushta, in Tokharistan [sic], and took it on with him to Samarcand, where he
spent the spring and summer” !

The Doctor could not have had a map by him when he wrote this, and
certainly did not read the ^ 7aécdti Nasiri” aright. What the Tabakat-i-
Nasiri contains may be seen above and farther on. If the Chingiz Khan
had taken the route marked out for him by the Doctor from ^ Pakli and
Swat ”—but the Chingiz Khan never crossed to the east bank of the Indus
with his army—he would have performed a feat indeed. From thence to
Chaghan Sarde and the Pushtah-i-Nu’man in Khurasan, vot in Tukhiristan,
I beg leave to say, he would have marched through a maze of mountains, the
most difficult, perhaps, in Asia, some Jo degrees from E. to W., after which,
to reach Samrkand only, he would have had to march backward some five
degrees more in the direction of N.E. Chaghan certainly signifies white, as
he says, but who shall show that the place in question was named Chaghan
Sarde in consequence of that march, or that it did not receive the name from
Turks centuries before, or from Mughals—even the Mughals reigning in
India—centuries after ?

It will be observed that the Doctor simply says ‘‘ zs route was probably
across the Swat country” and ‘‘ through the casy Burogil Pass,” but Mr. D. C.
Boulger, in a book entitled ‘‘ THE LIFE OF YAKOOB BEG, AMEER OF KAsH-
GAR,” whose sole authority [as he states] for such a statement is Doctor
Bellew’s narrative in ‘‘all its fullness,” has ventured to assert, on the bare
probability expressed by the Doctor, that the Chingiz Khan did actually
return from the Indus to Kashghar by the ‘‘ Baroghil Pass.” At pp. 28 and
29 is the following :—

‘‘Genghis Khan carried the terror of his name into the utmost recesses of
the Hindoo Koosh. He wintered in the district of Swat, on our north-west
frontier, a territory which is quite unknown to us except by hearsay [he might
have added, ‘‘as far as he knew ”’], and which has only been occupied by the
Mongol and Macedonian conquerors [here, too, he might have added, “as far
ashe knew}. rom his head quarters on the banks of the Panykora he sent
messengers to Dehli... . . He hastily droke up from his quarters in Swat,
and, by the valley of the Kunar and Chitral, he entered Kashgar, through the
Baroghil Pass.”

All this may appear very satisfactory to the unwary, but there is not an
atom of fact in the whole statement, and I shall presently show that the Chingiz
Khan did nothing of the sort, and was never near the ‘‘ Baroghil Pass” in his
life. This is a specimen of the nonsense called history which this Afghan war
has called forth by the hecatomb, and the public misled.

Colonel ©. ए. Malleson, C S.I., in his ‘‘ Aestory of Afghanistan from the
Earliest Times,” states (p. 113) that ‘‘ Chinghiz Khan,” meanwhile, on the first
news of the outbreak in Khwarizm, had hastened to that province, had

1046 . THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

peace !—as he was entertaining the design of conducting
his army towards Hindistan,?and of returning, by way of the
Koh-i-Kara-chal* and Kam-riid, to the country of Chin;
but, although he was burning shoulder-bones [of sheep] con-
tinually and examining them, he used not to find permission

suppressed the redellion [sic. Perhaps the writer did not know that Khwa-
razm was an independent empire, including great part of western Asia], 4id/ing
in battle the two brothers of Faldl-u-Din, and that he had then ^^ marched
southward, capturing in succession Bal/kh, Mérv, Herdt, Nishdpor, and Tus,”
which places, save Balkh, the Chingiz Khan was never near in his life.
Soon after the author informs us that from 1227 to 1251 ‘‘the enslaved
country (Afghanistan) Aad no history” [as far as Col. Malleson knew].
These pages will show the correctness of history, which is ‘‘a marvel of
accuracy.”

To return to the Chingiz Khan. His object was to save distance, and
reach Tingkut by the shortest route. By Lakhanawati and Kam-riid the
distance would have been still lessened, assuming that it lay as we find it in the
maps of the old travellers and the Jesuits, but not if it had lain as far north as
it appears in the map to the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” wherein we are informed
[p. 92] that ‘“‘Jingis Khan wintered about the sources of the Indus,” which
are in Tibbat itself! Ifso, he would have been very near Tingkut, without
marching back some ten degrees west to reach Buklan, and then marching
twenty degrees east again to reach Tingkut. He found, however, that he was
not likely to obtain the consent of Sultan I-yal-timigh to take the Kara-chal
route, and as time pressed he had to give it up, and get into the route by
which he had entered Khurdsan in the outset. The particulars respecting his
return will be found farther on.

2 Northern India is here referred to

3 In nearly all the copies of the original this word is written ७10 with ह but

is meant the three points having been mun into one, as is often done in
i This is the mountain range which several European scholars have
made mistakes about, but our author seems to refer to the Himalayah range
in its general acceptation, in referring to Kam-rid. Reinaud, for example,
reads the name Xelardjek from AL-BIRONI, in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh of
Rashid-ud-Din ; but, in the copies of the latter work which I have examined,
the name is correctly written. Ibn Batiitah also has Kara-chal. The de-
scription given shows very plainly the tract of country indicated. Al-Birini
says the peaks resemble domes of di/aur [crystal], and that they are covered
with perpetual snow, like the mountain of Dimawand. Then, continuing his
description from east to west, he says, next come the Bilaur Mountains in
the direction of Turkistén, and that a two days’ journey brings one into
Turkistan. Their cities or countries [bilad] are Gilgit, Astiirah, and Chilas,
and the people of Kashmir suffer greatly from their raids. Farther on he says
that, in two days after passing the mountains of Bilaur and Shamilin, the
country of the Bhiitaw4ari Turks is reached [this was the part the Mughal muler
wished to reach], and again refers to their raids upon Kashmir ; but what I
wish to draw particular attention to is this statement, that, if a person travels
along the left bank of the Sind [Indus], he will meet with numerous towns
and villages, to the south of the capital of Kashmir, as far as the KARA-CHAL
rance between which and Kashmir is a distance of two leagues

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1047

augured that he should enter Hind, when swift messengers
brought information to him from Tamghaj and Tingit, that
the Khans of Tingit, and Tamghaj were in a state of revolt,
and that the loss of those territories was impending; and,
25 a matter of necessity, he returned from the Koh-payah of
Gibari.

The whole of the mountains [of that tract] were blocked
with snow, and, by the Chingiz Khan’s command, they used
to sweep it away ; and, by way of the passes of the terri-
tory‘ of Ghaznin and Kabul, he returned to Turkistan and
Kashghar.

From Gibari, in the depth of the winter season, he de-
spatched Uktae with an army of Mughal troops into Ghir
and 11012581. Uktde reached a place situated between
Ghir and Ghaznin which they [the people] call Pul*-i-Ahan-
garan [the Blacksmiths’ Boundary], near unto Firiiz-koh, and
there Uktae pitched his camp. From thence he nominated
the Juzbi, Sa’di, and the Juzbi, Mankadhi,’ and several
other Ni-ins, with a large force, to proceed into Sistan, and
the Ni-in Abkah, who was the Chingiz Khan’s personal
Manjaniki [Engineer—head of the catapult workers], and
in whose corps were 10,000 Mughal Manjanikis, was

* The word appears to be =< the plural of ~ as rendered above. In
some copies of the text the word appears to be a. which, unless a proper
name, is meaningless. Other copies have a+, «2 and even a The Calcutta
Printed Text has a“

The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh states that, after the defeat of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din,
the Chingiz Khan advanced up the Indus, and sent Uktaie downwards towards
Ghaznin, and that, during the hot season, the Chingiz Khin, with the main
army, continued encamped in the plain of Mirwan—y!y yee—or Nirwin—,ls y03
—for it is written both ways, and also Yazwan—y!s» in expectation of
being joined by the Ni-yan, Bala, who had been sent in pursuit of the
Khwarazmi Sultan. When he rejoined, the Chingiz Khan moved from his
summer quarters and set out in order to reach Tingkut by the shortest route.
His forces advanced some marches, when news of the revolt in Tingkut
teached him, and, as the route he was then following lay through a most
dificult country, filled with mountains and forests, uncultivated, with a sickly
climate, and bad water, he gave orders to make a retrograde movement back
towards Parshawar [the territory of—Alfi also states that he set out from
thence in Mubarram], and returned to his own country by the same route as
he had come, by the Bamian mountains. When he reached the fortress of
Kinaiin-Kor-kin—y¥,3 $4 s—Uktae rejoined him with his forces.

$ Pyf has other meanings besides that of a éridge, and here means as
tendered. See page 321.

6 In some works, Mankadah.

1048 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

despatched against the fortress of [the] Ashiyar’? of Ghar-
jistan. Uktade likewise sent the Ni-in, IIji, into the गा
tracts of Ghir and Hirat. In short, Shahnahs [Intendants]
and bodies of troops were appointed to proceed into every
part of Ghiir, Khurasan, and Sistan ; and, during the whole
of that winter, those bodies of troops from the Mughal
forces, which had entered into those different territories,
carried slaughter into all the townships and villages thereof.

When information had reached the Chingiz Khan of the
slaying of the Mughal Shahnahs, he commanded, saying :
“From whence have these people whom I have killed come
to life again? On this occasion my commands are on this
wise, that the heads of people shall be separated from their
bodies, in order that they may not come to life again.”
Consequent upon this, they [the Mughals] devastated all
the cities of Khurasan, a second time.

The force® which had advanced to the gate of Sistan
took that place by assault; and, in every quarter, and in
every dwelling thereof, they had to fight before they were
able to overcome the people, for the Musalmans of Sistan,’
women and men—great and small—all resisted obstinately
with knife and sword. All [the males] were slain, and the
females were martyred.

In the city of Hirat, to the gate of which [another]
Mughal force had advanced—-as has been previously re-
corded—there was a Khwajah, whom they were wont to
style the Khwajah Fakhr-ud-Din-i-’Abd-ur-Rahman, the
*Ibrani' [Hebrew] Banker, a Khwajah of vast opulence,
and held in great respect ; and, on this occasion, he held
out the city of Hirat for some days. Malik Mubariz-ud-
Din, the Sabzw4ri, having evacuated and fled from the
fortress of Firiiz-koh, had arrived at Hirat, and they [the

7 Ashiyar is the plural of Shar, the title by which the ancient rulers of
Gharjistin were known. See page 341, note 6.

8 From Uktae’s army, as will be seen farther on.

® The events of Sistain will be found farther on. The fortress referred to
held out a considerable time.

1 This word—,,l,s—occurs in the oldest and most of the other copies
of the text, but a few have ’Iraki—_3ls He is also styled ’Abd-ur-Rahim
in one copy, but that was his father’s name. The Raugat-us-Safa has ५।८
which may be meant for Timram. The Habib-us-Siyar, according to Price,
has ’Arab.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1049

inhabitants] had made him commander of the forces of
Hirat.?, They related on this wise that, when the Mughals

? The news of the defeats inflicted upon the Mughal armies by Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, at Barwan, in the spring and summer of 618 H.,
spread rapidly ; and, “the wish being parent to the thought,” it was stated
that, henceforth, the Mughals would never again be able to cope with the
Sultan. Consequently, in every part where there was any Malik, Shahnah,
or official of the Mughals, he was put to death, and the people set over them-
selves some person to direct the affairs of their various cities and provinces
until such time as the Sultan should restore order, while some, no doubt,
hoped to become independent.

Hirat followed the example: the people rose, Malik Abt-Bikr, tlhe Mara-
ghani, and the Mughal, Mangatde, were put to death, and the chief people
chose Malik Mubariz-ud-Din, the Sabzwari, as their leader and governor, the
same who is mentioned by our author at page 1004, while the administration
of civil affairs was made over to the Khwajah, Fakbr-ud-Din-i-’Abd-ur-
Rahman, a man of experience, who is styled an ’Iraki by all but our author ;
and these two personages were of one heart and one mind to resist the
Mughals to the utmost. They forthwith made great exertion to put Hirat in
a good state of defence.

When the Chingiz Khan heard of these outbreaks, and especially that of
Hirat, he was very wroth with his son, Tuli, who had now rejoined him, and
exclaimed: ‘‘This comes through your withholding the sword from the
Hiratis !” and the very next day a force of 80,000 horse was despatched on
the way to Hirat, under command of the Nii-yan Iljidde [the Ilchikdae of
others—which seems the most correct—and I]ji of our author: Abi-l-Ghiazi,
Bahadur, spells it Ilchiktae. He was the son of Kajbiin, brother of the
Chingiz Khan, and greatly trusted by him], at the same time remarking to
him that dead people had come to life again, but he was to take care this time
to ensure their being dead, by cutting their heads off, and to spare nothing.
He set out in the month of Shawwal [Sha’ban ?], 618 प्र, [January, 1222 A.D.].
Such is the date given, but it is simply impossible. It, ‘however, tends to
Correct, at the same time that it proves itself impossible, another date—that of
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din’s defeat on the Indus. Tili Khan, in the same year, had
marched against Marw, Nishabir, and Hirat, and had returned to the camp at
the Pushtah-i-Nu’min, near Tal-kan, which still held out, in 618 प्र, The news
of the defeats inflicted on the Mughals by the Sultan, in the spring and summer of
that year [about the first quarter of that year which began on the 7th of March],
required a little time to spread ; then the news of the outbreaks in consequence,
and among them the rising at Hirat, required a little time to reach the
Chingiz Khan’s camp. By this time Tuli had rejoined him, a supreme effort
was made to capture Tal-kan, and after that we may suppose that he deter-
mined to send Iljidde against Hirat, and move against the Sulfan in person.
The date generally assigned to the Sulfin’s defeat on the Indus is Rajab—the
seventh month—618 H., three months before I\jidae, according to the date
above, was sent from Tal-kan against Hirdt. Some, again, say the Sultan
was defeated in Shawwal, the month in which Iljidae is said to have been
despatched, and this also proves that he could not have been despatched in
that month, but some time before. It therefore seems beyond a doubt that
the Chingiz Khan heard of the rise at Hirat in the fifth or sixth month of
618 H., despatched Iljidae early in Sha’ban—the eighth month—pushed on

3 X

1050 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

captured the city upon this occasion, this Malik Mubariz-
ud-Din, an aged man of fine and handsome aspect, rode

himself to Ghaznin in pursuit of the Sultan, very soon after, and defeated him
on the Indus in Shawwal, the ninth month of 618 H. The Sultan could not
have been defeated in Rajab—the seventh month—therefore ; and from these
dates likewise it is clearly proved that, on his way to Ghaznin and the Indus,
the Chingiz Khan could not have been detained by the so-called siege of
Bamian, referred to in notes 5, page 1008, >, page 1012, and °, page 1016

The Nii-yan, Iljidae, in due course reached the river of Hirat, where he
halted for the period of one month in order to prepare for undertaking opera-
tions, and make ready the catapults and other warlike engines. From the
neighbouring places, previously indicated by the Chingiz Khan himself, which
had submitted to the Mughal yoke or had been subdued, he obtained assistance
and war materials ; and, in a short space of time, from the confines of Khura-
sin, the territories of Balkh, and the highlands of Shiwarghan, some 50,000
horse and foot, of the people of the country compelled to serve, arrived to aid
in the siege.

On the other hand, they were not idle in Hirat; and Malik Mubariz-ud-
Din prepared for a vigorous defence. All the people, high and low, great
and small, bound themselves by most solemn pledges not to do as was done
on the former occasion, but to fight while life remained.

The month of preparation having expired, the Nii-yan, Iljidae, or Ilji, who
now had a force of 130,000 men under him, advanced towards the city of
Hirat, and four bodies of 30,000 men each were disposed, so as to operate
against the four sides of the city, and the four gateways. He took care before-
hand that those among his troops who should be guilty of any misdemeanour
[no doubt this was because their defeats, by Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, had made
them feel themselves less sure of success than previously, and it was soon
after the Sultan’s overthrow of the two Mughal armies that this force was
sent against Hirat, and before the Sultan’s defeat on the Indus] should be
punished with death, but those who distinguished themselves should be fittingly
rewarded.

The siege was prosecuted with vigour and as bravely defended during a
period of 6 months and 17 days, when, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal,
619 H., the Mughal commander determined upon a supreme effort, and
assaulted the place for several successive days, with the loss of some 5000
men upon each occasion. The walls, from the constant battering of the
catapults and other military engines, had become quite honey-combed, when,
one day, about 50 ells of the curtain gave way, burying, among others, 400
men of note among the Mughals under the क. Three days after this
misfortune division arose among the defenders—one purty being for holding
out, the other for capitulation—for the people within had now become much
straitened, both for military stores, as well as food to feed the immense
number of inhabitants and fugitives within the beleaguered city, while, day by
day, reinforcements and assistance were reaching the Mughals. At length, on
a Friday, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal—Raugat-us-Safa says, the month
after, but all leave out the date—619 H., the final assault was delivered where
a portion of the curtain fell, and the Mughals entered the fortifications at
what was afterwards called the Khakistar Burj [bastion] and captured the
city. They at once commenced an indiscriminate massacre —old and young,
male and female, adult and infant—and for the space of seven days this was

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1051

through the city fully armed, and arrayed in defensive
armour ; and, lance in hand, fought against the infidels
until he attained martyrdom ; but God knows the truth of
the matter. |

ACCOUNT OF THE CAPTURE OF THE FORTS OF KAL-YUN
AND FIWAR.?

After the Mughal troops had effected the capture of
Hirat and desolated the city, they divided into two
divisions. One of these marched into Sistin, and at its
head was the Juzbi, Sa’di, and other great Ni-ins; and
the other force appeared at the foot [of the walls] of the
hisar of Kal-yiin, and the troops took up their position
round about that fortress.‘ It is a fortification excessively
strong, the like of which, in strength of construction, there
is nowhere to be found, either in loftiness and sublimity,
or in stability and solidity ; and in the KITAB-I-MASALIK
WA MAMALIK [The Book of Roads and Kingdoms], which

carried on, the city sacked, the buildings and defences demolished, and the
ditch filled up. ‘‘The number of persons who attained martyrdom on this
occasion amounted to 1,600,000,” in which number must be certainly included
those who, from the towns and villages around, sought shelter within that
stronghold ; and it will easily be perceived how difficult it was to have held
out so long with such a number to feed. The resources of Hirat must have
been immense.

After the Nii-yan, Iljidae, or Ilji, had desolated the district around Hirat
and left not a soul alive, he, after a further stay of eight days, set out for the
fortress of Kal-yiin, as our author states ; but some authors mistake the name,
and have Isfizir—,\;4e!\—which was the name of a town and district
dependent on Hirat, through which he passed, and also mentioned in the
“MASALIK WA MAMALIK.” See page 397, note 7. The fortress described
by our author lies beyond that, but the direction agrees. From this place the
Mughal leader sent such of the booty captured at Hirat, as was befitting, to
the Chingiz Khan ; and, when he reached the 4asta4 of Aobah, mentioned
before, at page 358, note .*—still a well-known place on the direct route
between Hirat and Kabul, although geographers, at the present day, seem to
have very hazy ideas on the subject —he sent back a body of 2000 horse, with
the true fiendish instinct of these barbarians, to slaughter such of the unfor-
tunate Hiratis as might have concealed themselves, and who now, imagining
that the Mughals were far away, had come out of their places of shelter
Sixteen persons, including the Khatib, were all who remained alive! The
particulars respecting them will be found under Uktae’s reign

3 This fortress was founded by Sultan Bahad-ud-Din, Sim. See page 342

+ It is worthy of note, and highly significant, that the pro-Mughal authors
एध allude to these events in Gbiir and Khurasin. They either knew
nothing about them, or purposely concealed them.

3X 2

1052 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the masters learned in science have compiled, this fortress
is mentioned in these words: “ The strongest fortress in
the world, and the fairest, is Kal-yiin.” It is such a for-
tress that whosoever would go from the foot of [the walls
of] the city of Hirat to the foot of the walls of that fort, it
behoveth him to proceed twenty farsangs [leagues] in an up-
ward direction to a considerable altitude, until he reaches
the base of the rock upon which that fortification stands ;
and, that point having been reached, it is necessary to pro-
ceed another league upwards in order to reach the foot of
the rock on the summit of which the ramparts of the fort
stand. The height of that rock is about a thousand cubits,
and the face of it is like a wall, so that it is impossible for
any living thing to mount it, with the exception of reptiles
of the earth ; and on the top of the rock is the plateau of
four leagues or more [in area ?]. In the fortress are seven
wells which they have excavated in the solid rock, and in
each of these is so much perennial water that, however
much of it is expended, it does not diminish ; and, in the
middle of the fortress, is an extensive plain.

The sons of Abi-Bikr who were the champions of Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shih, two brothers, two heroes of
renown, and, in themselves, two huge elephants of war—
were the seneschals° of that fortress. Trustworthy persons
have related that both the brothers, in stature, were so tall
that, when they used to accompany Sultan Muhammad
Khwarazm Shah [on horseback], in procession, with their
hands placed on his stirrup, their heads rose a head higher
than that of the Sultan ; and the two brothers were famed
for their valour and high spirit, and they were the Amirs
[governors] of the fortress. During these events the Ikhtt-
yar-ul-Mulk, Daulat Yar, the Tughra-i, who was one of
the rulers in the Khwarazm-Shahi empire, had also entered
the fortress of Kal-yiin.

$ In most of the modern copies, ‘‘four bow-shots or more,” but the context
shows that inside the fort itself was an extensive plain. The map compiled
by Captain Sanders and Lieutenant North, of the country around Hirat dunng
the first occupation of Afghanistan, will probably show its position, which
lies about 70 miles N.E. of Hirat.

© The principal person in charge'was a civilian, as previously mentioned,
the Malik-ul-Kutab, the Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk, Daulat Yar-i-Tughra-i, as men
tioned at page 1003, but these two champions acted as seneschals of the fortress.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1053

At the time when the infidel horsemen reached the base
of the fortress, there were in Kal-yiin a great number of
men and much war material. Sultan Muhammad, Khwa-
razm Shah, had [previously] beleaguered and pressed hard
this fortress and that of Fiwar, which is opposite to it, for
a period of ten or eleven years before he obtained posses-
sion of them.’ Kal-yin had [since] been thoroughly pro-
vided with men and arms, and stores and provisions.
When the Mughal troops began the attack upon it, the
holy warriors and tried men within descended from the
fortress and commenced holy war upon them, and de-
spatched numbers of Mughals to hell. Day and night
they engaged in fighting with and resisting the infidels-
The intrepidity of the garrison of the fortress reached such
a pitch that it was impossible for the Mughal force to ob-
tain sleep at night out of dread of them, and so these
infidels completely enclosed the entire fortress round with
a circular wall, in which they placed two gates, facing the
fortress, with walls before them, and men were told off
to keep watch at night.* A trustworthy person related
that a fox had remained at the foot of the rock on
which the fortress of Kal-yiin stands, within the circum-
vallation of the Mughals, and, fora period of seven months,
that fox had no way by which he might get out, so strictly
did the Mughal troops guard this wall.

When one year of the investment of the fortress passed
away, the Juzbi, Sa’di, with a Mughal army, from before
the gate of Sistan, came into Khurasan, and arrived at the
base of the fortress of Kal-yiin; and, a second time, was
the place closely invested.’

7 That was during the time of the Ghiri Sultans. and must have happened
soon after the assassination of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mubammad-i- Sam, or
even before that event. :

8 The Printed Text, like some JS. copies, differs considerably here, and
they have, ५३ double” wall.

9 From this it appears that, before the arrival of the Juzbi, Sa’di, the
Mughals had latterly contented themselves with merely blockading the place ;
but, after his arrival, began more active operations. Although beaten offtwice,
they never left it entirely, and then came back again to invest it, as will pre-
sently appear.

The Raugat-ug-Safa has an apocryphal story to the effect, that the people of
the great fortress of Kal-yiin, fearing the Mughals, with the help of the Hiratis,
would attack them again, now that they had obtained possession of Hirat,

1054 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

A pestilent disease overcame the defenders of the for-
tress, and the greater part of the people died, through the
provisions with which the fortress was supplied, which
consisted of a large quantity of dried flesh and pistachios
—for the pistachios of Khurasin mostly come from around
about Kal-yin—and, from constantly eating dried flesh,
pistachios, and clarified butter, the peaple of the fortress
used to fall sick, and their heads and feet used to swell,
and death would result. After the garrison had held out
against this investment for a period of sixteen months, not
more than fifty persons remained alive, and of these twenty
were suffering from swollen feet, and thirty were strong
and healthy. One of this band left the fortress and went
over to the Mughal force, and made known the state of
the garrison and of the fortress of Kal-yiin ; and, when the
Mughal troops ascertained for certain the state in which
the people of the place were, the infidels donned their
arms and turned their faces towards it. The garrison,
resigning themselves to martyrdom, threw everything of
value within the fortress, consisting of gold and _ silver,
and valuable clothes, and whatever was of worth, into the
wells, and then filled them up with large stones from the
fortress ; and all else that remained they burnt. They
then threw open the gateway of the fortress, drew their
swords, and threw themselves upon the infidel Mughals,
and attained the felicity of martyrdom.

When the fortress of Kal-yiin was taken, a body of the
Mughal forces which had been at the foot of the walls of
the fort of Walkh' of Tukhiaristan, namely Tilan, the
Juzbi, and Arsalan Khan of Kaialik, with those Mughal
troops, by command of the Chingiz Khan, marched to the
foot of the fortress of Fiwar of Kadas.? This fortress of

although they had twice been obliged to raise the investment, despatched
eighty men to Hirat to kill Amir Abi-Bikr and Mangatie, the Mughal,
and thus create a diversion, and direct the Chingiz Khan’s power to the
destruction of Hirat !

1 See page 1023, and also note >, page 1024.

2 This is the tract respecting the name of which there were some doubts at
pages 342, 375, and 398, but Kadas and not Fadas—there is but the difference
between ७ and —j—is the correct name, but, in some copies, it is written—
Kadush—with sh. It is in these parts, and among these mighty fortresses
that the student of the Macedonian Alexander’s campaigns might identify the
stronghold of the Bakhtrian Oxyartes, the rock fortress of Chorienes [Kal-yin?]

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1055

Fiwar in strength, solidity, and impregnability, is still
stronger than the fortress of Kal-yiin, and the fact of its
strength may be held certain in that ten men can defend it.
Between Fiwar and Kal-yiin is a distance of about ten
farsangs [leagues], in such wise that both fortresses are in
sight of each other. If strange horsemen should reach the
base of the fortress of Kal-yiin in the day, the people
would make a smoke, and, at night, they would light a
fre; and the garrison of Fiwar used [thus] to know of it:
and if such should reach the fortress of Fiwar the same
would be done to make it known to Kal-yin.

For a period of ten months® that the Juzbi, Tilan, and
Arsalan Khan of Kaialik, lay before the fortress of Fiwar,
on account of the great scarcity of provisions, their forces
had become reduced to great straits. They now brought
from the stores of the fortress of Kal-yiin what was neces-
sary for their subsistence,‘ so that, for a short time [longer],
they were able to continue before the stronghold. A per-
son from the fort of Fiwar [now] came into the force of
the Juzbi, Tilan, and gave information of the state of the
place, that [nearly] the whole of the garrison were dead,
and that, throughout the whole fortress, there were not more
than seven men alive, and out of them four or five were sick.
Then the infidels armed themselves, and captured the place,
and martyred those seven persons—God reward them !

These events happened in the latter part of the year
619 H.,* and this was the affair, as has been [just] related, of
those two strongholds, than which there were no stronger
forts in all Khurasan and (गा प्ताः.

ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS WHICH HAPPENED IN प्र,
GHARJISTAN, AND FIRUZ-KOH.®

The city of Firiz-koh which was the capital and seat of

and other positions not made out, always supposing, however, that the first
Nicea is no other than Nisa, a very ancient place. Several of these strong-
holds agree with the descriptions given by Arrian and Strabo.

9 One of the oldest copies has eight months.

* It is stated just above that everything of value had been thrown into wells
or burnt, but perhaps they did not think pistachios and other provisions worth
destroying.

* See note 7, page 106r.

* The fortress of Tilak is included under this heading, and ourauthor says it

1056 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

government of the Sultans of Ghir, the Juzbi Uklan,’ with
the Mughal forces {under him] appeared before, in the
year 617 H., and for twenty days and more attacked it
vigorously, but retired without having effected their pur-
pose. The people of Firiz-koh showed opposition towards
Malik Mubariz-ud-Din, the Sabzwari [who was in charge],
and rose against him ; and he was under the necessity of
entering the upper fortress, which is situated to the north-
east of the city, upon a lofty and overhanging mountain.
During the time of the Sultans of Ghir there was no more
upon that spot than a great kasr [castle],* and it used to
be impossible for laden beasts to get there; but, at this
period, that Malik Mub§ariz-ud-Din, the Sabzwari, had re-
stored and enlarged that fortress, he had carried a
rampart all round the top of that mountain, and had
made a road to that fortress so that laden camels used
to go up toit, and a thousand men could find quarters
therein.

When disagreement arose between the people of Firiz-
koh and Malik Mubariz-ud-Din, the Sabzwari, and the
latter took up his quarters in the upper fortress, the people
wrote letters to Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain '—may he
rest in peace !—and solicited him to come thither. Malik
Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, with the forces of (मुप्ता, proceeded
to Firiiz-koh, and Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, located his
uncle’s son, Malik ’Imad-ud-Din, Zangi, Ba’lami; at Firiiz-
koh, and this circumstance happened in the year 618 H.

lay between Ghiir and Khurasan, and, therefore, it was situated, by this
account, in Gharjistan, north of Hirat, or close to it. In another place [page
362], he says it is in the hill-tracts of Hirat.

7 This is the person who is turned into Hulakoo in Miles’s ^" Shayrad ul
Atrak,” so-called, but it is a work of no authority whatever, and his translation
contains gross and absurd errors.

8 As already mentioned at page 1007, which see.

9 This is the place referred to at pages 403 and 407.

1 Here, as in other places preceding, he is, in some copies, styled Hasan. He
was Malik of Ghiir, under the Khwarazmis, after the downfall of the तं
dynasty. This is the illustrious Malik—the son of ’Ali, son of Abi ’Ali—
who came into India in the reign of I-yal-timish, who held such a promi
nent position in Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah’s reign, and who was, at last,
put to death by that Sultan, or rather his advisers. See pages 702 and 798

2 Doubtful : it is written ds in some of the best copies of the text as well as
कन as above, and in others—_d# and (न —without any points

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1057

When the forces of the infidel Mughal, under Uktiae,
moved from Ghaznin and advanced towards Ghir, a body
of troops [from that army] pushed on, suddenly and un-
expectedly, and fell upon Firiiz-koh. Malik ’Imad-ud-
Din, Zangi, they martyred in the year 619 H.; and the
people of the city were martyred also. Malik Mubariz-ud-
Din, the Sabzwari, evacuated the [upper] fortress, and
came to Hirat, and there attained martyrdom; and the
city of Firuz-koh was wholly destroyed.‘

The fortress of Tilak, however, of which Amir Habashi-
i-Nezah-war [the expert at the lance] on the part of Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah—on whom be peace !—was
governor, did not fall into the hands of the Mughals.
The fortress of Tilak is a fortification totally unconnected

* The Chingiz Khan’s son, at the time his father left the banks of the Indus
with the intention of returning homewards. See page 1047.

+ This place, the seat of a powerful empire never afterwards recovered ; and
at this day even its site appears to be imperfectly known. Its destruction is
another specimen of the ‘‘ architectural afflatus which fell upon the world after
the Mongol invasions.”

But neither our author, nor any other Oriental writer, knows anything about
(ग्य, its capital, or its sovereigns ; and when they tell us that Firiiz-koh was
the capital they merely show their ignorance, for does not ‘‘ General Ferrier”
tell us that ‘‘ Zernmz’’ was? In his book, entitled ‘‘ CARAVAN JOURNEYS,” he
states at page 248, ‘‘Zerni was, as I have before remarked, the ancient
capital of the country of Gour. . . . == Its position in a valley is happily
chosen” !!

In his attempt to reach Kabul from Hirat, ‘‘the General ”’ set out from the
latter place, and says he reached as far north as Sar-i-pul, and was com-
pelled soon after to return to Hirat again. This journey occupied him
from the 22nd June to the 21st July—just ¢Airty days—on which latter date
he was brought back to Hirat again. During the chief part of this time he
was under surverllance, and not permitted to roam about, and travelled part of
the time through ‘‘Gour ” by s/ar/ighé, but notwithstanding all this he not only
discovered the ancient capital, but also its name, totally contrary to every
Native author who has written on the subject, and also had time to make
researches into the history of Gour, although he did not even know how to spell
the name correctly. Consequent on these discoveries our author's account of
its twenty-two rulers, not including those of Ghaznin and Tukhiaristan, must be
contrary to fact, for ‘‘the General” tells us that the ‘‘Gour” dynasty only
lasted sixty-four years, and that it only consisted of ve persons ! !

I may be permitted to doubt the correctness of ‘‘ the General’s’”’ statements
(upon a good many matters besides this, and not in this book alone), until
some one can show me, in any history whatever, such a name as Zernt, much
less that it was the ‘‘ancient capital” of Ghiir.

It is quite time such incorrect statements and such (^ Histories” should be
exposed.

1058 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIL

with any adjoining mountain, and the foundation of it
dates from the time of Manichihr, and Arash,;' the Archer,
[then] held it. In the upper part of it are chambers hewn
in the solid rock which they call Arashi [after Arash],‘ and
Amir Nasr, the Tilaki,’ sunk a well, in the upper part of the
fortress ; and the diameter of the well will be about twenty
gaz {ells|,and it is excavated in the solid rock. The water,
however much is drawn from it, shows no decrease, and its
depth is immense. The fortress is of great strength, and
lies between (गप्रा and Khurasan. When Sultan Muham-
mad, Khwarazm Shah, came to Balkh,* Habashi-i-Nezah-

5 The famous champion and archer of Manii-chihr—Heavenly-faced—the
tenth king of the Bastaniah dynasty, and one of the heroes of the Shah-
Namah. Arash, upon one occasion, is said to have discharged an arrow from
Amul to Marw, a distance of only about “‘ forty days’ journey.” This, how-
ever, is much of a kind with the feats the Greek heroes of antiquity performed,
and not a whit more exaggerated.

® It will be seen from this, that the excavations in and around the district
of Bamian, and where the two great idols, the Khing But—Grey Idol, and
the Surkh But—Red Idol, stand, are, by no means, the only ones in
these parts ; and the fact shows, in a somewhat ridiculous light, the various
opinions respecting the latter, and their purposes.

The account given respecting them by oriental writers is, briefly, this.
“The Azing But is the beloved of the Surk4 But, and they are each about
fifty-two gaz—ells—high. Theyare situated in the mauza’—district—of Bamian,
a dependency of Tukhiaristan, on the frontier of Badakhshan. People can
go in and come out at the fingers and toes of these idols or figures, which are
hollow within. Some call them Lat and Manat, and in ’Arabic they are
styled Yaghiis and Ya’uk.”

MAssoNn, in his Travels, makes out these two figures to be the work of the
‘White Huns,” who conquered Transoxiana and ‘‘ Khorasan,” and were
finally exterminated by ‘‘ Zingis Khan,” and his opinion is supposed to
‘*receive countenance from the well-ascertained fact that Zingis Khan de-
stroyed Ghulghuleh,”’ the ruins of which are scattered over the Bamian valley.
The same author considers these caves to have been catacombs. Strange
that we hear of no 2८7 or 6/ack Huns in connexion with ‘‘ Zingis ” and ‘‘ the
catacombs.” MoorcrortT [each rides his own hobby] was of opinion that
Bamian was “the residence of a great Lama,” and the excavations the abodes
of ‘‘ Lama clergy,” and ‘‘ the lower classes of the monastic society,” and that
**the laity inhabited the adjoining city’?! ELPHINSTONE attributes these
idols and the contiguous caves to ‘‘the Buddhist princes of Ghore,” but what
history says that the Tajzik Ghiiri chiefs and rulers were Buddhists any more
than that they were ‘‘ White Huns”? and what are the proofs? Col. ©. B.
Malleson, however, makes ‘‘ Ghilzai’’ Afghans of them !

7 A former governor of the place : the chief whose fief it was.

$ Just previous to his flight towards Nishapiir. Here all the copies of the
text collated have Balkh— jt and not Walkh © as before, showing, still more
clearly, that they refer to tWo separate places.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1059

war, with the troops of Tilak, proceeded to Balkh also,
and presented himself before the sublime threshold [of that
monarch]. He was directed to return to Tilak,’ and put
the fortress in order and make preparation for opposing
the Mughals. After he returned from thence, in the be-
ginning of the year 617 H., on several occasions, bodies of
Mughal horsemen came to the foot of the fortress, and
made raids in its neighbourhood ; and, in the year 618 H.,
the Ni-in, निका who was a son-in-law of the Chingiz
Khan, and who commanded a force of 40,000 Mughal
cavalry, and troops of other races, appeared at the foot of
the fortress of Tilak with a numerous army.

Amir Habashi-i-Nezah-war? agreed with him that he
would become tributary to the Mughals; and came down
from the fortress and paid homage to him, and returned to
it again. The subsidy which he had assented to, Habashi-
i-Nezah-war apportioned among the people of Tilak, and
enforced its payment rigorously. This Habashi-i-Nezah-
war, in his younger days, in the beginning of the reign of
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, was a common man,
a Nishapiri, and a maker of sacks; and, in Khurasan and
Khwarazm, there never has been one so skilled in the use of
the lance as he. This has been heard oftentimes from his
own lips,—“ If, upon occasion, I should lie down on my
back upon the ground, and take a staff in my hand, I
would defend myself against four men with spears.” In
short, he was a very excellent man, and his good works
were many, and his charities countless. At this time, how-
ever, through his having apportioned this subsidy among
them, the whole Tiilaki people decried him, and considered
themselves oppressed in the collecting of it. One of the

9 Tilak must have been a place of considerable size, and its dependencies
populous, as, some years before, 1200 Tilakis, were left to garrison Tabar-
hindah, just before Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mubammad-i-Sam, Ghiri, was
defeated by Rae Pithora at Tara’in. See pages 458 and 459.

At page 362, our author states that it lies in the mountains in the vicinity
of Hirat, and is in the country of Khurasan. It is in vain to look for it in
any of our maps, but it is not in ‘‘Ghor,” so styled.

1 The same who was overthrown by Sultan Jalal-ud-Din. At page 1006
the number of troops is stated at 45,000. See note >, page 288.

3 He must not, from the similarity of part of his name, be confounded with
Taj-ud-Din, Habaghi-i-’Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-Zarrad, referred to at page 1007,
who, subsequently, fell, fighting against those infidels.

1060 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

clever, of that time, composed a verse, and, as it is witty, it
has been here inserted in order that it may come under the
observation of the sovereign of Islam, and that the people
of the Tilak district may be remembered with an in-
vocation. The Khwajah, and Imam, Jamal-ud-Din, the
Khazinchi *—on whom be the Almighty’s mercy !—says:
“‘T said: ‘Habashi, Nezah-war! what is this wrong ?
What have the Tilakis to do with rack and prison?’

He replied ‘I am a leather-worker and Fiki a dog :4
The dog knows and the leather-worker knows what the wallet contains.’ ”

The inhabitants of Tilak, both the soldiery and the
peasantry, having suffered extortion [at his hands], revolted
against him, seized him, and delivered up the fortress of
Tilak and Habashi-i-Nezah-war to Malik Kutb-ud-Din,
Husain, in order that he might take charge of it, who came
to the fortress of Tiilak, and he located therein his own
son, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Muhammad; and the maternal
uncle of the writer [of this work], which is Minhaj-i-Saraj,
and whose name was Kazi Jalal-ud-Din-i-Majd-ul-Mulk,
Ahmad-i-’Usman, Nisawi, was Hakim [governor], and the
Khwajah [Jamal-ud-Din ?] directed its affairs.’ After Ha-
bashi-i-Nezah-war fell into the power of Malik Kutb-ud-
Din, Husain, the latter for a time kept him in confinement,
and, at length, gave him permission to proceed to the for-
tress of Fiwar. The Malik of that fortress was the Pah-

3 This term, signifying treasurer, is somewhat doubtful, as it is written in
different ways, and mostly without the diacritical points—, = ,la—, .=/9,.—and
८०५

$ A tanner and a dog held near akin in those parts.

° This is an important passage, in some respects, since, without the use of
two izafats, both of which stand in lieu of 417, son of, no sense can possibly
be made of it. At page 458, our author mentions this uncle ‘‘ of his maternal
grandfather,” but that last part of the sentence must have been redundant or
. an interpolation. There, his name and titles are not given in full, he being
merely styled Kazi Majd-ud-Din, Tilaki ; but it now appears that Majd-ud-
Din was his title, and Ahmad his name, and that he was the son of ’U sman,
the Tilaki, whose family, originally, came from Nisa. Kazi Jalal-ud-Din
was his son, and the brother of that Kazi of Tilak, named Muhammad,
entitled Ziyi-ud-Din, who was left, along with 1200 Tilakis, to defend the
fortress of Tabarhindah, when, thirty-seven years before, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Muhammad.i-Sam, Ghiiri, retired to Ghaznin after his defeat by Rae Pithora.

The son of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, the Ghiiri, must have been young in years,
and therefore the Khwajah, Jamal-ud-Din, and the Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, directed
the affairs of Tilak, nominally for Malik Kutb-ud-Din. It appears strange,
however, that his own people should have put the Kazi to death, and our
author does not give us any further particulars.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1061

lawan, Asil-ud-Din,‘ the Nishabiri, and he seized Haba-
shi-i-Nezah-war and martyred him

When the fortress of Kal-yiin fell into the hands of the
infidels [the Mughals], the inhabitants of the fortress of
व पामर, who were also kinsmen of the Khwajah, and fifteen
heads of families, also kinsmen of each other, entered into
a compact together,’ in the year 619 H., and caused the
Khwajah to be martyred, and sent the son of Malik Kutb-
ud-Din, Husain, back to the presence of his father. For a
period of four years, they [the Tilakis] waged war against
the Mughal infidels a great many times, and the author of
this work, which is Minhaj-ud-Din-i-Saraj, during these
four years, used to join the people of Tilak, who were all
kinsmen and brethren, in their holy warfare, and, in the
end, it continued safe from the hands of the infidels.

After the people of Tilak became disobedient to the
authority of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, he determined
upon retiring into Hindistan, in the year 620 H.,’ and the
fortress of Tilak remained unmolested.*

Subsequently to these events, the author of this work
chanced, upon two occasions, to undertake journeys into
the Kuhistan on the subject of a mission : the first time, in
the year 621 H.,' and, on the second occasion, in 622 प.
Afterwards, in the year 623 H., on the part of Malik Rukn-

¢ Mentioned at page 1003

7 The date here given in the text, in which all copies:agree, is €~ —
but it cannot possibly be correct, and must be a mistake for g-i—nine—be-
cause Fiwar, which held out over a year, was not captured, by our author’s
own account, until the latter part of the year 619 H. The investment of that
fortress was only undertaken after the fall of Walkbh of Tukhiristan, against
which Arsalan Khan of Kaialik, and Tilan, the Juzbi, were despatched in the
third month of 618 H., and which held out for eight months. See pages
1023 and 1055.

9 An account of what misfortunes befell him on his way thither will be found
farther on.

१ At page 1069 it is stated that, on the 12th of a month, not given, in the
year 620 H., the Mughals sprang an ambuscade against Tilak, but did not suc-
ceed in their object. At page 1070 also, our author further states, that Tilak
was entered in 620 H. by the Mughals, after Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain,
had retired from the territory of Ghiir with other Maliks, and they were
making towards Hind by the route over the Arghand river.

1 At this time Khurasan was entirely clear of Mughals. These journeys are
mentioned farther on in the account of the downfall of the Mulahidahs, which
see, and page 201. He undertook two journeys for Malik Rukn-ud-Din,
the first was in 622 H. See page 1039.

1062 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’Usman, the Maraghani, of Khiaesar
[of Ghir], the author proceeded to the presence of Malik
Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, the Khwarazmi; and, in the same
year, on the part of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, he
went on another mission to the Badshah ° of the Kuhistan,
to Neh* and to Sistan. After this the author set out [on
his journey] towards Hindistan.

Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin [subsequently ?], came to Tilak,‘
and the people of that fortress paid obeisance to him, and
he removed [some of ?] them to Sistan. In the disaster of
Sistan, they all attained martyrdom,‘ and [the remainder
of ?] that people continued there [at Tilak]. The Amir of
Tilak {at that time ?] was Hizabr-ud-Din, Muhammad, son
of Mubarak, and he went to Kyuk Khan,‘ and, up to this
present day, his children hold that fortress.

ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS WHICH TOOK PLACE BEFORE
THE FORT OF SAIF-RUD OF गप्र.

The fortress of Saif-riid of Ghir’ is the strongest of all

2 Not a sovereign or king here, but the Muhtashim—a sort of Abbot or Prior—
of the Mulahidah heretics, on the part of the head of that sect. See «^ Panjab
and Dehli,” in 1857, ‘‘ by Rev. J. Cave Browne,” who raises up a ^" Badshak”
—a king—by means of the poor old Akhiind of Suwiat [lately dead], not know-
ing that words sometimes have two meanings.

3 The Printed Text is always wrong with respect to the name of this well-
known place. See under the Maliks of Sijistan, page 200.

4 At page 201 our author says Binal-Tigin took possession of the fortress of
Isfizar, as well as that of Tilak, in 623 H.. about the time he himself left his
native country and set out for Hind, and at page 200 he states, that Binil-
Tigin was despatched to Neh, by Burak, the Hajib, to the assistance of one of
the rival Maliks of Sistan, and that he took possession of Neh for himself.

9 Our author says ‘‘all,”’ as contained in the whole of the A/SS. collated,
but this cannot be, for, otherwise, how could he have remained at Tilak at the
same time? Perhaps, as these events occurred at the period he was preparing
to leave for Hind, his account became somewhat confused. At the time the
Mughals invested the citadel of Sistin—the second time of their appearing in
that country—these very Tilakis who were removed formed part of the Sistan
garrison and made a gallant defence. Hizabr-ud-Din, Muhammad, was set up
by the Tilakis after Binal-Tigin withdrew, and, having made submission to
the Mughals, was allowed to continue to hold it. The siege of Sistan is men-
tioned farther on.

6 Kyuk Khan ascended the throne in 643 H., and died in 647 H., some say
in 648 H. See under his reign. It is most absurd to notice how this simple
name has been written in some copies of the text—eJ—JS— ES — tS and
even ७४ only.

7 This is the fortress in which Bahram Shah, son of Khusrau Malik, the
last of the Mahmiidiah dynasty of Ghaznin, was immured. See page 115.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1063

the strongholds of the 7262८ [mountain tracts], and the
foundation of it had been laid by the father of the Sultans
Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu’izz-ud-Din—Sultan Baha-ud-Din,
Sam,* son of ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain.

When Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, retired from
before Balkh towards Mazandaran, he commanded so that
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, should put the fortress in a
state of repair. There was but little time [to do it in], and
he was unable to construct more than a reservoir in the
upper part of it; for, two months after the command was
given, the Mughal army entered [that part], and the possi-
bility of constructing anything more did not offer itself.
In that reservoir he collected sufficient water for about
forty days’ supply for the people of the fortress. The
Mughal troops carried their depredations into all parts of
Ghir ; and the whole of the quadrupeds of every kind,
from all parts, fell into the hands of the infidels, and the
people of Ghiir attained martyrdom, through a dram of
four dangs.®

Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, with his troops, sought
shelter within that fortress, and the Ni-in Mangitah, the
Ni-in Karachah, and the Ni-in Utsuz,' with a numerous
army, advanced to the foot [of the walls] of the fort, and,
when they understood that the defenders had but a small
supply of water, they fixed their camp at the base of the
stronghold, and commenced hostilities. For a period of
fifty days they assailed it with great vigour, and, on both
sides, a great number of MusalmAns attained martyrdom,
and Mughals beyond compute went to hell. There was an
immense number of quadrupeds in the fortress; and as

® Four forts are mentioned as having been constructed by him, but this one
isnot mentioned. See page 341. The न्य Ghiir has already been noticed.

१ This appears to be some proverb or trite saying. It might be read “four
déngs out of a diram”—four fourths. A diram has four dangs or tings. Or
itmay mean that many people lost their lives in attempting to save their
cattle.

1 This name is very doubtful in the text, no two copies being alike ; but
this is, at least, Turkish, and is plainly written—j;5!—in one copy. The
Others may be Albar, Alsar, Absar, Atar, Asaz, Albasar, or Alburz, and thus,
in three copies, the second letter is 4, and in three other copies the last letter
15 2. This leader’s name does not occur in other histories, because they do
hot contain any account whatever of the attacks upon, and determined defence
of, these strongholds, nor is his name to be found in a long list of the Chingiz
Khan’s Ni-yins.

1064 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

many as they were able to cure by drying they slaughtered,
and the remainder, amounting to the number of 24,400
odd, perished for want of water. The whole were thrown
from the ramparts of the fort on to the glacis on the side of
the hill [on which it stood], and the whole face thereof, for
a depth of some forty gaz [ells], was completely strewn with
the carcases of the dead animals, so that not a yard [of
space] of the whole-hill could be seen for them.

Orders were given so that, for the people of the fortress,
a stated allowance of water, grain, and other provision was
fixed, to each man half a man [about a gallon, or rather
less] of water, and a man of grain ;? and to Malik Kutb-ud-
Din, Husain, one maz of water—half for [his own] drinking,
and half for the purpose of his ablutions. There was no
horse in the fortress but one, the private horse of Malik
Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, for the use of which the water
expended in the Malik’s ablutions used to be set aside, and
was collected in an open vessel so that the animal might
drink it. When a period of fifty days had expired, the
party which had been stationed to guard the reservoir of
water gave intimation that not more than one day’s supply
remained in it ; and a person, from the fortress, went away,
and informed the Mughal troops of that circumstance.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, when he ascertained the fact,
convened the males of the people of the fortress at the time
of afternoon prayer, and proposed that, the next morning,
at break of day, they should put all the females and chil-
dren to death’ with their own hands, and throw open the
gateway of the fortress, and that every man, armed with a
naked sword, should conceal himself in some place within
the fortress, and, when the infidel Mughals should enter it,
they [the Musalmans], with one accord, should fall upon
them with their swords, and should continue to fight them
until they should attain the felicity of martyrdom.

All pledged themselves to this, and submitted their

2 About 8 Ibs. This weight varies in the different countries and districts of
Persia, Afghanistan, and India, from 8 lbs. to 40 lbs,

$ The I. O. L. 47S., No. 1952, the Hamilton 49. , and the Ro. As. Soc.
MS. have instead of »+§—‘‘ should put them to death "—S a:ay—‘‘ should
strip them naked”! This shows the danger of trusting to a single M/S., or
even two, and the absurd mistakes made by ignorant scribes, who, in this
instance, wrote the adjective qualifying sword twice over.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. . 1065

hearts to martyrdom; and this determination became fixed
in their minds, and they were taking leave of each other,
until, at the time of evening prayer, Almighty God, the
Most High and Holy, unclosed the door of His mercy
[upon them], and, out of His boundless beneficence, sent
clouds, so that, on the summits of the mountains around
about, and parts adjacent, until midnight, the rain of mercy
descended, and the snow of compassion fell, in such wise,
that, from the army of the infidels without, and the cham-
pions of the faith within the fortification, a hundred thou-
sand exclamations and cries arose in wonderment at the
succour of the Most High God. The people of the fortress,
who had withdrawn their hearts from existence, and washed
the hand of hope of life, and who had endured the thirst of
fifty days, and during that time had not drunk the sharbat
of their fill of water, drank from the coverings of the tents
and sdéyah bans, so much snow water, in satisfying ‘ their
longing, that, for a period of seven days after, smoke issued
from their throats along with their saliva.

When the Mughal forces beheld that Divine assistance,
and witnessed the bountifulness of the Creator, they knew
that the people of the fort had saved at least a month’s
supply of water, or even a two months’ supply, that the
month of 7 [the fourth solar month] was come to its
close, and that, without doubt, in the winter season, snow
would fall successively. The following day, therefore, they
abandoned their position before the fortress and raised the
investment, and went to hell until the following year.

When the new year, 619 प्त, came round, again the
Mughal forces from Khurasan, Ghaznin, and Sistan, entered
the different parts of the mountain tracts of Ghir. After
the disaster which befel Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm
Shah, a force from the Mughal armies, amply equipped

* In most copies of the text ahaa cooking-place, a kitchen, etc.—and in
the printed text ae has been uséd for ass

5 The greater number of the copies of the text have 61 8 H., but, as Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din’s defeat happened, not in the seventh month—Rajab—of that
year, 25 generally stated, for the reasons already given in note >, page 1049, but
in Shawwal, the ninth month, the second attack on this fortress, if it happened
in the beginning of a year, must have happened in the beginning of that of
619 H. ; and it is subsequently stated that, with a winter intervening, it was
taken in 620 प,

3 Y :

1066 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and provided, and [consisting of] cavalry, and infantry, and
Amirs, beyond computation, appeared at the foot of the
fortress of Saif-riid, and pitched their camp ; and hostilities
commenced. As Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, had had
opportunity, and had constructed reservoirs, and collected
vast store of provision, he fought many encounters with the
Mughal troops, and used strenuous efforts against them ;
and, the greater the efforts and endeavours the infidels put
forth, the stronger became the affairs of the fortress, and
the more intrepid grew the warriors of the faith. On this
occasion, the fighting continued, and they kept up the in-
vestment, for a further period of two months, and, in no
way, could they obtain possession of the fortress.

After that [period of time], the infidels turned their faces
towards treachery and deceit, and entered into the gate of
peace, and propounded words of amity. As the people, for
a considerable time, had suffered the disquietude and care
of a fortress, out of eagerness for gold, and clothes, and
cattle, at a cheap rate, they were agreeable to an accom-
modation. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, used to dissuade
them greatly from entering into a truce with infidels, but
the people had become wearied and exhausted, and the
fate of some of them was near at hand. His expostulations
were of no avail; and, in the end, a truce was agreed to,
on the stipulation that, for a period of three days, the
people of the fortress should come into the Mughal camp,
bring the commodities they possessed and dispose of them,
and take away the gold and silver the price thereof, and pur-
chase such cattle and woollen garments as they required ;
and that, after the expiration of three days, the Mughal troops
should march away from before the place. When the truce
had been ratified, the people of the fortress conveyed all
such commodities as they possessed into the camp of the
accursed ones, and for a period of two days bought and
sold what was necessary, and not a Mughal infidel, or any
one else,° annoyed any person whosoever. When the night
of the third day came, the infidels concealed a great
‘number of armed men behind rocks, [bales of] clothes,
pack-saddles of animals, and in the old gullies and ravines

४ The contingent of the Karligh chief, Arsalan Khan of Kaialik, is doubt:
less referred to here.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1067

about their camp; and, when the morning of the third
day broke, the people from above descended from the
mountain and mingled as before among the infidels in their
camp. All at once they [the Mughals] beat kettledrums
and raised a shout, and every Mughal infidel and rene-
gade, who was buying and selling with the Musalmans,
seized, on the spot, those Musalmans and slew them, with
the exception of the persons whose lives Almighty God had
spared ; and all who had arms with them, or displayed
knives, them they first deprived of their weapons, and then
slew them.

At this place an incident occurs, and a piece of advice
for observers and readers offers ; and it is this: There was
a leader among the soldiery [in the fortress], a Nishapiri,
2 thorough man, whom they were wont to style Fakhr-ud-
Din, Muhammad-i-Arziz-gar [the worker in पाग, one
among the followers of Amir Habashi-i-Nezah-war, who
was, at this time, in the fortress of Saif-rid, in the service of
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain. He [Fakhr-ud-Din] also had
gone into the camp of the Mughals, and was buying and
selling ; and, in the leg of his boot, he had a ‘knife in shape
like a poniard. A Mughal, who was trafficking with him,
desired to seize him, but he laid hand on his knife, and
drew it out of the leg of his boot. The Mughal stayed his
hand from him, and Fakhr-ud-Din again placed his foot to
the mountain, and returned in safety to the fortress.

The warning [here conveyed] is, that it behoveth not a
man, in any case, to be passive in the matter of his own
safety, particularly when in a place he may be holding
parley with a foe, or be in the company of an enemy; and
he should see to his own preservation for some useful pur-
pose, and not be without a weapon: for the rest, the pro-
tection of the Most High God is sufficient to preserve
whom He wills.®

Trustworthy persons have related that two hundred and

7 Workers in tin are not generally “ leaders ” of soldiers, and the word here
used, viz., ‘‘Sipah-Salars,” is that also applied to the commander of an
army ; but, of course, the context shows what is meant here.

9 Here is a good proof how wrong are the ideas of some persons as to the
Musalmans and their religion, that a// must be, and is left to fate, and that no
effort must be made on their own parts to help themselves. Our author here
describes the teachings of his religion.

3 भ 2

1068 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

- eighty men of note and heads of families, valiant® men, fell
captive into the hands of the Mughals [upon this occasion};
and, such a disaster having befallen the people of Islam,
there was not a dwelling [in the place] in which there
was not mourning.” On the occurrence of this misfortune
the Mughal Ni-ins employed emissaries to propose that
they [the people of the fort of Saif-riid] should ransom
their own people; but Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, did ,
not consent. When the Mughals understood that, on this
occasion, the people of the fortress would not take the bait
of treachery, they, on the following day, bound all the
Musalmans who had become captive—ten and fifteen to-
gether—and killed them with sword-wounds, stones, and
knives, until they made martyrs of the whole of them.
The next day, the Mughals made preparations to renew
the attack; and Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, the night
before the attack, gave directions so that all the great
[blocks] of stone [lying about] on the face of the hill near
the khak-rez ' of the fortress were speedily placed in such a
manner that the touch of a child would move them from
their places and send them rolling down. More thana
hundred great stones as big as mill-stones, and hand-mill-
stones, fastened to beams of wood, at the extremity of
each beam a millstone, they had drawn out; and those
beams were fastened to the battlements of the fortress by
ropes. The whole of the men of the fortress were divided
into two bodies: one half were concealed on the top of the
ramparts, behind the battlements, and the other half out-
side the fortress, at the foot of the ramparts, behind the
great blocks of stone. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, en-
joined that, until the sound of the kettledrums of the for-
tress arose, not a person should show himself.

All things having been arranged in this manner, at dawn
the next morning, all at once, the Mughal forces—great
and small, Amirs and common men, infidel Mughals and
renegades, armed at all points—issued from their camp,

9 This tends to show what these forts were—in reality, fortified towns in
themselves.

1° The “ Printed Text,” which is so much to be depended on, and so wry
correct, upon occasions, has 1

} An artificial mound. See page 1039, note 8,

IIRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1069

and turned their faces towards the fortress. For example,
there were more than 10,000 valiant men under shields,’
whom they brought upwards. The Musalmans had given
them time, so that they ascended more than the distance
of two arrow flights towards the fortress, and not a man of
the Musalmans appeared in view. When between the in-
fdels and the Musalmans about one hundred yards of the
side of the hill remained, they beat the kettle-drums within
the fortress, and the holy warriors and champions—leaders
and common men—all raised a shout, cut away the mill-
stones, beams, and ropes, and sent the great stones rolling
down. Almighty God so willed it, that not a single indi-
vidual among the infidel force should escape being killed,
wounded, or disabled; and, from the summit of the hill to
the base of the same, Mughals and renegades lay prostrate
together, and a great number of the Mughal grandees,
Ni-ins, and Bahadurs, went to hell

The remainder of the Mughal army arose and retired
from before the foot ofthe fortress. This victory, bestowed
through the grace of Almighty God, according to the pro-
mise : “It is a duty incumbent on Us to help the Believers”
—took place on Thursday,‘ in the year 620 H.

On Sunday, the 12th of the same month, they [the
Mughals] sprung an ambuscade against the fortress of
Tilak,’ and made determined attacks upon it; and, on

? The words, or compound word, here used, differ considerably in different
Copies of the text, but one has plainly 54.-—another 5.—and two others
See and 56 respectively ; and all three last are probably intended for the
first, which is the name of a description of shield or buckler made of buffalo
hide ; and this would signify men ander bucklers, as rendered above. The
Printed Text has 4%

> Every copy has fort—sJs—instead of hill—.s—but the error is palpable.
The Mughals were within about one Aundred yards of the foot of the walls
when the great stones were sent rolling down upon them, and they had
no chance of gaining the top of the fortress. Had they been able to reach that
they might have captured the place.

* Here is one of the justly ^" vaunted impregnable castles and fortresses ’”’
which were mot ‘‘without exception captured,” as the Kashghar Mission
History informs us they were.

The month is wanting in every copy of the text collated, but, from what
has been stated at page 1065, that in the first month of the year 619 H. the
Mughals set out to invest it the second time, and that this happened in 620 H.,
the fortress must have held out over a year.

$ As usual with our author, this circumstance he leaves out altogether in his

1070 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

that day, the infidels lost great numbers of men killed
before that fortress ; and then they retired.

When the infidel Mughals had withdrawn from Khur-
asan, and the 7762८ [mountain tracts] of Ghir and Khurasan
had become clear of that host, Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain,
resolved upon retiring into Hindistan, together with other
Maliks of Ghir, such, for example, as Malik Saraj-ud-Din,
’Umr-i-Kharosh,* from the territory of [द्वा and Malik Saif-
ud-Din, and others, all joined him, and, with their families
and dependents, set out. By destiny’s decree, a force from
the infidel Mughals’ main army was nominated [about this
time] for the purpose of ravaging Khurasan, and, at the head
of that army, was a Mughal of note, whose name was
Kazil Manjuk ; and it entered Khurasan. From the side
of Hirat and Isfizar it advanced to the foot of the fortress of
Tulak,® and every Musalman the Mughals found within
the fortress [of Saif-riid] they martyred, or made captive.
There they obtained information from the captives of the
departure of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, with other Maliks
of Ghir, with their families and dependents, and their
followers. They set out after the Ghiri forces, and, on the
banks of the river Arghand,° discovered them, engaged in
constructing a bridge over that river, in order that they
might pass over the troops, families and dependents, and
effects. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the Mughals came
upon them. Malik Saif-ud-Din, with his followers, sought

account of the fortress of Tilak already given, but gives it here in the account
of Saif-riid ; and, since the month is not mentioned in the preceding paragraph,
it cannot be gathered from this. See page 1061.

6 This term is both written Kharoshi and Kharoshti, as well as Kharosb.
See pages 433, and 493.

7 Thus in the best and in the greater number of copies of the text, but in
others ५५ and ,\e respectively. It is some district in Ghir evidently, but no
such place has been before mentioned in this work.

8 Our author must mean from the side of Isfizar and Hirat, as going from
the latter to the former place, or in its direction, would be moving farther from
the river Arghand. The fortress of Saif-riid must, from this, have been aban-
doned in a defenceless state.

9 Not the ‘‘ river Arghand-ab””— Urgundab, or Urghundab, is entirely out
of the question, and, indeed, it may be said that no such river exists—aé itself
means river and water, and we might as well say the river Arghand rivef or
water, which is the real signification of ‘‘river Arghand-ab.” The word
Arghand signifies angry, full of rage, impetuous, bold, etc., and thus denotes
what the river is.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1071

the protection of the hills, and so remained safe, and again
retired towards the mountains of Ghir. Malik Saraj-ud-
Din, ’Umr-i-Kharosh, stood to fight, and was martyred ;
and Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, by great stratagem,’
dashed his horse into the river, and, with a few men,
emerged from it [on the opposite bank]. All the rest of
the Amirs of Ghir, chieftains, and warriors, and the females,
all attained martyrdom, including the sisters, daughters,
and kinsfolk of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain.

From thence the Mughal army returned again towards
Ghiir and Khurasan.

THE FALL OF THE FORT OF ASHIYAR, OF GHARJISTAN,?
AND OTHER FORTRESSES.

Trustworthy persons have narrated, that, when the
Chingiz Khan determined to advance from his camp at
the Pushtah [hill] of Nu’man of Tal-kan of Khurasan* to-
wards Ghaznin, he left behind there his baggage and heavy
materials, and his treasures, because it was impossible for
wheeled carriages to be taken into the defiles and passes

1 Some of the best copies of the text have jlo. @&:¢—with, or after
much fighting, and some others have ~~ Je#—with a numerous follow-
ing, but I read it , = Jx¢—by much or great stratagem. The reason for
so doing is that it is said that the Malik who stood to fight was killed, and
that Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, with a few followers, reached the opposite
bank. It is possible many persons may have been drowned in crossing, but
our author does not say so. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, had probably heard
of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din’s feat on the Indus, and here followed his sovereign’s
daring example.

It was this same Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, who recovered the body of
his wounded Sultan, ’Ald-ud-Din, Utsuz, mentioned at page 416, which see,
and gained great renown in India. At last he fell a victim to ingratitude, or,
as some state, intrigue on the part of Ulugh Khan. See pages 702, 798, and
833.

2 The best Paris copy of the text always blunders at this name, respecting
which there is not the shadow of a doubt, and turns it into ‘‘ Ghazistan ;:” the
scribe appears to have imagined that Ghuzzistan was meant. Here is another
proof respecting the position of Tal-kan, and also another proof against a siege
of any such fortress as Bamian, which is said to have stopped the Mughal
Khan on his way to Ghaznin. No other author whosoever mentions his
having left his heavy materials, baggage, and wheeled carriages, behind at this
place, and no other writer enters into such interesting and valuable details
respecting these strongholds, and the doings of the Mughals in these parts.

3 Gharjistin is a district or province, once an independent principality of

urasan, See page 341.

1072 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of Gharjistan, by reason of the very mountainous nature of
that country, and the impracticability of the roads. When
the Mughal army moved towards Ghaznin, only a small
force was left behind for the protection of the heavy
materials, baggage, and wheeled-carriages. The fortresses
of Gharjistin of Khuradsan were near by, namely, the for-
tresses of Rang,‘ and Bindar [ Pindar], Balarwan,’ Laghri,‘
Siya-Khanah,’ Sabekji,®> and Ashiyar. The most of these
fortresses are galleries on the faces of the mountains, in
such wise that the rain falls upon the inhabitants of those
strongholds, and springs of water flow forth in front of the
galleries of [forming] these fortifications.’

Within the fortress of Ashiyar was a Gharjah' Amir of
great determination and energy, and his name was Amir

4 In some copies of the text the name of this fortress is written =)
—Rang, and in others &j;—Zang. The former appears the most correct,
according to the most trustworthy copies of the text. See page 1003.

४ Here, as at page 115, the name of this fortress is written in some of the
less trustworthy copies of the text, Yalarwan, with २ for »—one has Birwan—
olyei—and one ७019 which may be read in various ways. See also page 436.
It is the stronghold in which Khusrau Malik, the last of the Mahbmidi
Sultans of Ghaznin, was confined, and, subsequently, put to death, together
with his son, Bahram Shah, who was kept in captivity within the walls of
Saif-riid of Ghiir.

6 A native of this place was feudatory of Lakhan-or in 642 H. See
page 739.

7 At page 416, this fortress, in some copies, is styled sl t&.—Sata-
Khianah as well as ails |.—Siya-Khanah. Here, however, the different
MSS. vary still more, for, whilst two of the three best [the oldest
abruptly terminates at page 1026] here have ails t.—Sata-Khanah, and
ale \2—Shiya or Shia-Khanah, others have sls &s—Shina-Khanah, and
als (८. Sa-Khianah, and some, the more modern copies, turn it into as—.—
Sangah, which is a totally different place, in Mandegh, not in Gharjistan.
See pages 331 and 340.

8 At page 363, the name of this fortress is as above, in the best copies of
the text, and in others varies considerably, as stated in the foot-note ; but
here one of three oldest and best copies has what may be read either (न~
Sanbagji or Sanbakji, or fir —Sabangii or Sabankji, whilst another of
the three best copies has — without any diacritical points whatever.
Baihaki mentions a fort of Sabekh—,—.—as somewhere near Ghaznin,
probably west of it, but the latter must be a different place.

® Our author has described these famous strongholds so plainly that, should
ever an opportunity offer of exploring these parts, of which we know com-
paratively nothing, there will not be much difficulty, from their peculiarity, in
finding them. They appear to be excavations in the rocks something after the
fashion of the excavations near the present Bamiain.

' That is to say, a native of Gharjistan.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1073

Muhammad, the Maraghani.? As there wasa vast amount
of wealth, and also innumerable captives, and numerous
horses, in the Mughal camp [at the Pushtah-i-Nu’man], Amir
Muhammad-i-Maraghani, with a strong force, started from
the fortress of 45111927, and seized upon as many wheeled
carriages, laden with gold and other wealth, as he possibly
could, from the Mughal camp, set a great number of
captives free, and obtained possession of many horses. On
one or two occasions Amir Muhammad performed such
like feats of daring, and displayed similar determination.’
When the Chingiz Khan set out from the territory of
Gibari towards Turkistan, and despatched his son, Uktae,
towards Ghir, Uktae, that winter, fixed his camp between
Firtiz-koh and Ghaznin, and sent out bodies of his forces
in every direction, as has been previously recorded.‘ The

2 See page 1003. He was the ancestor of the Kurat dynasty.

3 Which it is almost needless to state will not be found chronicled in any
pro-Mughal history.

* See page 1047.

Strange to say, our author, although he refers in detail to the despatch of
Uktae with an army, never refers, in the most remote manner, to Chaghatade
and the force under him, nor will any reference .to it be found under the
reigns of Kaba-jah or I-yal-timish. I will, therefore, notice, as briefly as
possible, what the subsequent writers mention on the subject.

Alarming accounts, as our author also mentions at page 1084, reached the
Chingiz Khan respecting the state of affairs in Tingkiit and Khitie in conse-
quence of his prolonged absence in the west, and that the Tingkiutis and
Khita-is were preparing to throw off the Mughal yoke. Having held counsel
with his sons, the Nii-yin, Karachar [the ancestor of Amir Timir], and other
Ni-yins and chiefs, he determined to despatch a force to endeavour to find out
Sultin Jalal-ud-Din, wherever he might be, for his existence troubled him,
and whose prowess and energy he feared. It was further determined that this
army, which was to be very powerful, should push on as far as the limits of
Kich and the Mukranit [i.e. the Mukrans], and the frontiers of Hind. This
army was put under the command of Chaghatie, and he was directed to utterly
devastate and ruin the countries through which he passed, in order that the
Sultan might have no means of acquiring strength or resources, or of recovering
himself, and be completely crippled.

A second army was to be placed under the command of Uktae, which was
to advance from the valley of the river of Sind towards Ghaznin, and was to
devastate the country in that direction, and so utterly destroy that city that
there should be no more inducement for Sultan Jalal-ud-Din to return there.
But our author’s account, as given above, of the movements of this force, is
much more clear. It was also intimated that, towards the close of the cold
season, the great urd would be moved towards Turan Zamin.

The army under Chaghatae, which was the most numerous, penetrated into
Sind and the Mukranat, but, strange to say, not one of the pro-Mughal writers

1074 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Ni-in Abkah,' who was the Amir of 10,000 Manjanik-chis

§ See page 1047.

referred to above, and previously, says by what route it went, and no reference
is made to it either under the reign of Kaba-jah or I-yal-timigh. This army is
said to have overrun the whole of the territories in question, and to have
wintered [the winter of 619-20 H.—A.D. 1222-23], within the limits of a tem-
tory named Kalinjar—’—on the banks of the Sind river [but the name is
also written _,¢/—Lanjar—<—Kanjar, and even ,—Lanbar, the letter gin
the latter, however, is without points, and | be intended for j, ch, or
kh. The Rauzat-us-Safa calls it Kalanji—, ६], the ruler of which part
of the country was the Salar, Ahmad; but who he was, and whether he was
independent, or the feudatory of any sovereign, the chroniclers say not;
and he is not known to the historians of Hind or Sind.

The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh says he passed the of season on the confines or
frontiers of ,.5 #» but this name, being without points, is unintelligible, and
that the ruler of this part was the Salar, Ahmad.

The fort in which Isra’fl, the Saljuk, was imprisoned and died, referred
to at page 117, and note %, is spelt like the first name mentioned, and
with long a—<’—and the word ufin the Raugat-us-Safa may have been
j€¥ originally. This fort lay, we are told, in the Multan province, and was
subsequently called Talwarah, but the place where Chaghatae’s army wintered
is said to have heen on the banks of the Sind.

Whoever this Salar Ahmad was, he is said to have done his utmost to sup-
ply the requirements of the Mughals, and the subsistence of that great army.
It, however, became prostrated with sickness through the unhealthiness of the
climate [in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper” this sickness, by mistake, is transferred to
his father’s army !], and also impeded with a vast number of captives, in such
wise that, in every tent [or dwelling, or hut—the word used is £4ana4], there
were from ten to twenty, or twenty to forty, and they had the task of bringing
and preparing the food of the army. In this sickly state of his troops,
Chaghatie issued commands for each captive to clean 400 manns [of 4 sers oF
8 Ibs. each] of rice—and this shows they were in a rice-growing country—and
the task was completed within the following week. His next command was
to massacre the whole of these Hindiis [sic in ASS.], and, by the next mor-
ing, they were all killed, and their bodies lay about in great heaps. How
unjust to call those times the dark ages! The Mughals, barbarians and
infidels as they were, carried on war as it was carried on by ‘‘ Christians” in
the years of grace 1877 and 1878.

Whether the object of this massacre was to prevent an outbreak among the
captives in the weak state of his army, who can tell? Another strange thing
is that, throughout the year 619 H., and in the hot season of 620H., Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din was in the countries on the Indus which constitute the present
Panjab, had defeated the Khokhars, and afterwards gained their alliance, and
had overthrown Sultan Nasgir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, before Uchchah. Towards
the latter part of 620 H., Sultan Jalal-ud-Din had come by way of Multan and
Uchchah to Shiwstan, the modern Sibwan, and into Lower Sind, remained
there several months, sent an expedition as far east as Nahrwalah in Guzarat,
and only moved from Sind, by way of Mukran, in 621 H., on his way into
"Irak, on hearing of the movement of a numerous army of Mughals, which, if
the accounts of these writers are correct, must have been this very army. See

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1075
[catapult workers], he nominated to proceed [with his men]

note °» page 293. It is therefore difficult to imagine whereabouts ‘‘ Kalinjar ”
was, ‘‘near the banks of the Sind,” where Chaghatae and his army could
have passed the winter of 620 H., and still more so that he could obtain no
information respecting the Sultan, as will be mentioned presently ; he could
not have searched very diligently for him. It would have been a grand oppor-
tunity for the Sultan to have fallen upon the Mughals had he known the state
they were in.

To return to the movements of Chaghatade. He, finding no trace of the
Sultan or his whereabouts, as soon as his troops had somewhat recovered from
their sickness, determined to return, and set out, accordingly, on his way back
to Turan-Zamin. It is a long march from the territory of Mukran to the
Hindii-Koh, and yet the Mughal historians say not one word respecting the
route followed.

I find the author of the ‘‘ Afongols Proper,” pages 90 and 91, quoting
Wolff on this very subject, but, as Wolff often makes strange statements,
one of which is contained in the passage referred to under, and as he gives
no authorities, his statements are not very reliable. The passage is this:
** While Jingis retired northwards his son Jagatai [this is the ‘‘ Mongol Proper”
name for Chaghatae, probably] made a raid into Kerman in pursuit of
Rokn-ud-din, a brother of Jalal-ud-din [!]. He advanced as far as Tez
[according to Abii-Ishak, the Istakhuri, Tiz is a seaport in Mukran], on the
borders of the Indian Ocean, passed through Beloochistan (which, being an
entirely modern name, will not be found iz any early author), where he win-
tered, and where he also lost a large number of his soldiers, and returned by
the mountain land of the Afghans [this last clause of the sentence must also be
Wolff's own. The land of the Afghans in that day was very small], where he
was joined by Bela Noyan,” etc., etc. See page 281, and note °.

I must now notice the proceedings of the army under Uktae, which are but
slightly alluded to by the writers I take this from; but our author supplies
some details not mentioned by them, as they, writing while in the employ of
Mughal sovereigns, only cared to chronicle successes.

Uktae, having marched from the valley of the Sind river, reached Ghaznin,
and all the offers of submission and obedience tendered by its inhabitants were
of no avail [the writers appear to have forgotten that they previously stated
that, on his advance to the Indus, the Chingiz Khan had ‘‘left Mahbmiid,
Yalwaj, at Ghaznin as his Daroghah.” What had become of him in the mean-
time ?], because Sultan Jalal-ud-Din was still alive, and a source of anxiety to
his foes, who feared he would make head again ; so Ghaznin was sacked and
totally destroyed, its inhabitants massacred, and the parts through which he
passed were devastated, and all buildings utterly destroyed. Ghaznin never
recovered this. Uktae, after this feat, when the season arrived, proceeded by
way of the Garm-sir of Hirat, and set out for Maward-un-Nahr. For the
further movements of the Chingiz Khan and his sons on their return home-
ward, see page 1081.

Surgeon-Major Bellew, in his Kashghar Mission History, referring to
“‘Changiz” sending his son ‘‘ Aoktay in mid-winter to Ghazni and Ghor,
there to wipe out in the blood of the people the disaster his troops had ‘suffered
at the hands of Jalaluddin at Parwan,” which he is said to have done so effec-
tually during a ‘‘ campaign of two years,” that ‘‘the aboriginal Aryan stock ”
were annihilated, considers the Hazara ‘still pure Moghol in race type, and

1076 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

against the fortress of Ashiyar, and that body advanced
to the foot of that stronghold, and the attack commenced;
and, for a considerable time, they assailed it.

When they found that, through the vast strength of the
fortress, and the brave men [within it], it was impossible to
take it [by force], they sat down before it [and blockaded
it] for a period of fifteen months—but God knows best—
and, through scarcity of provisions, the people within the
fortress became reduced to great straits. As long as there
were provisions and flesh, they used to consume them ; and,
when food of that kind failed, affairs reached such a pitch
that they were wont to eat the flesh of whoever was killed,
or who died, to that degree, that every person used to keep
his killed and dead for curing and eating. Some have
related after this manner—the narrators are responsible for
correctness—that there was a woman of the minstrel class
in the fortress of Ashiyar. She had a mother and a female
slave. Her mother died, and she dried her body ; and her

many of their customs,” but who ‘‘know nought of their antecedents,” as
‘“the descendants of the army of occupation left there by him.” History, how-
ever, shows that there were many of the so-called ‘* Aryan stock ” in that part
for some centuries after Uktae’s campaign, but it is not to be wondered at that
they should be lost, when Tajziks are supposed to be Scythians, Dilazak
Afghans ‘‘ Rajputs” and ‘ Buddhists,” Kakay Afghans Panjabi ‘‘ Gukars,”
and the people of Irani descent to be ‘‘foreign Aryans.” There is not the
least proof, that I am aware of, that the Chingiz Khan left any of his Mughal
troops in Ghiir, but the direct contrary is shown by what our author states,
and from the proceedings at the commencement of Uktiae’s reign. This
‘* famous tribe of Hazara,” as Mr. Dowson styles them, without doubt, derive
this ‘‘ designation,” however incorrect in fact, from 4azarahs [this is the mere
Tajzik rendering of the Turki ming, the name applied to bodies of Mughals,
and others of Turkish descent, numbering a thousand men generally. See
page 1093] permanently located in the tract in question, but they were sent
thither many years after, and about the same time that others, the descendants
of whom now figure as the Chahar I-mak, were sent. One of the hazdrahs
moved into the part in question, from the territory of Balkh, was that of the
Nii-yin Mika of the tribe of Karayit, but they were not Mughals, but Turks,
and it was located round about Badghais, and in a short time increased
considerably.

As to the ^“ Hazarahs,” so called, having ^“ entirely lost their language,”
Elphinstone says, ‘‘ Why, if they be Moguls, should they speak Toorkee?”
See note at page 874. If some one acquainted with the history and traditions
of the Turks, Tattars, and Mughals, were to institute inquiries among some of
their educated men, I have no doubt but that they would be able to furnish us
with sufficient information to trace their antecedents pretty clearly, or their
descent, at least. I shall have more to say about them hereafter.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1077

female slave likewise died, and she dried her body also.
She sold the flesh of both of them, so that, from the two
corpses, she acquired two hundred and fifty dinars of pure
gold. At last she also died.

When a period of fifteen months and ten days had
expired, about thirty men only remained alive within the
fortress. They seized Amir Muhammad-i-Maraghani, and
martyred him, and threw his head near to the camp of the
Mughal forces, in hopes of their own deliverance. When
the Mughal troops beheld this occurrence, they at once
assaulted the fortress and took it, and martyred the whole
of those within it.

During this period [of the investment of Ashiyar] they
[the Mughals] captured the other fortresses of Gharjistan
likewise, so that, during the year 619 H., all the strongholds
of Gharjistan were taken ; ° and they sated the hearts of the.
Mughals with slaughter.

May the Most High God continue the gates of victory
and success open unto the servants of the kingdom of the
present sovereign, SULTAN NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA UD-
DIN, ABU-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMUD SHAH, for the sake
of His prophet and his race!

ACCOUNT OF THE RETURN OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN
TOWARDS TURKISTAN, AND HIS DEPARTURE TO HELL,

Trustworthy persons have related that the Chingiz
Khan, at the time when he came into 10125211, was
sixty-five years old, a man of tall stature, of vigorous build,
robust in body, the hair on his face scanty and turned
white, with cats’ eyes, possessed of great energy, discern-
ment, genius, and understanding, awe-striking, a butcher,
just, resolute, an overthrower of enemies, intrepid, sangui-
mary, and cruel. The fact that there were astonishing
things in several respects concerning him is sufficiently
clear and apparent to all intelligent persons. In the first
place, he was an adept in magic and deception, and some
of the devils were his friends. Every now and again he

५ This date is simply impossible from his own previous and subsequent
statements. The Chingiz Khan did not despatch Uktiae on this expedition
until 619 प्र. ; and, as Aghiyar is said to have held out over fifteen months,
620 H. must be the year in which it fell, and the other fortresses likewise.

1078 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

used to fall into a trance, and, in that state of insensibility,
all sorts of things used to proceed from his tongue, and that
state of trance used to be similar to that [previously men-
tioned], which had happened to him at the outset of his rise ;'
and the devils who had power over him foretold his victories.
The tunic and clothes, which he had on, and wore on the
first occasion, were placed in a trunk, and sealed up; and
he was wont to take them about with him. Whenever
this inspiration came over him, every circumstance—
victories, undertakings, indication of enemies, defeat, and
the reduction of countries—anything which he might desire,
would all be uttered by his tongue. A person used to take
the whole down in writing and enclose it in a bag, and
place a seal upon it; and, when the Chingiz Khan came
to his senses again, they used to read his utterances over
to him one by one; and according to these he would act,
and, more or less, indeed, the whole used to come true.
Besides this, he was well acquainted with the art of divi-
nation by means of the shoulder-bones of sheep; and he
used continually to place shoulder-blades on the fire, and
burn them, and in this manner he would discover the signs
of the shoulder-blades, contrary to the shoulder-blade
diviners of the ’Ajami countries who inspect the shoulder-
blade itself.* The Chingiz Khan moreover in [the ad-

7 See page 954.

8 The Afghins, too, as well as some other Musalman people of Asia, used to
practise this sort of divination. One of the Siff poets of Afghanistian—of the
family of the notorious Pir-i-Tarik, or Pir-i-Roghan, as he styled himself, but
not a pure Afghan—Mirza Khan, commences one of his mystical poems
thus :— ~

‘¢ When, with the mind, I examined the shoulder-bone of prediction,
I saw that, within unity’s area, the community of plenitude dwelleth,” etc.

The shoulder-bone of an animal, but more particularly that of a sheep, which,
like the Mughals, they also read their auguries by, is termed zwalaey in Pughto;
but the Afghans do not burn the bone, and merely draw their conclusions from
the signs they pretend they see in it. See my ‘‘ POETRY OF THE AFGHANS,”
London, 1867, page 58.

Rubruquis in his narrative says that on Sepéuagesima, when they all went in
procession to Mangi’s dwelling [khargah or felt tent], ‘‘as they entered, they
saw a servant carrying out the shoulder-bones of rams, burnt black. These
he consults on all occasions, be they ever so trivial ; as whether he shall admit
such a person irto his presence. The method is this : he calls for three bones,
then, holding them, thinks whether he shall do what he proposed or not.
Then he delivers them to be burnt, which is done in two little apartments [or

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1079

ministration of] justice was such, that, throughout his
whole camp, it was impossible for any person to take up a
fallen whip from the ground except he were the owner of
it; and, throughout his whole army, no one could give
indication of [the existence of] lying and theft. If any
woman that they [the Mughals] took in all Khuradsan and
the land of ’Ajam had a husband, no living being would
form a connexion with her ; and, if an infidel [a Mughal]
set his eyes upon a woman who had a husband, he would
[first] slay the husband of the woman, and then would
form a connexion with her.’ It used to be impossible for
falsehood to be spoken, and this fact is clear.

ANECDOTE.

In the year 618 H., the writer of this TABAKAT, Minhaj-
1-Saraj, returned from Timran towards Ghir. In the for-
tress of Sangah, which they style Akhil Mani,’ he saw
Malik Husam-ud-Din, Husain?-i--Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-Zar-
rad. Suddenly, his brother, Malik Taj-ud-Din, [Hasan],
Habashi-i-’ Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-Zarrad, to whom they [the
Mughals] had given the title of Khusrau of Ghir—mention
of whom has been previously recorded—with the per-
mission of the Chingiz Khan, returned to Ghir from बृ 21-
kan ;* and from him this anecdote was heard.

He stated: “On a certain occasion we came forth from

tents ?] near his dwelling. When they are black, they carry them to the
Khan, who looks at them ; and, if they be cleft lengthways, he may do it (it
is enough if one of them be cleft) ; if across, or round pieces have flown out
of them, he must not.”

® This perhaps is the style of justice the Chingiz Khan was endowed with,
which our author refers to—murder a man first, and take his wife after !

1In some copies, ८ ५91 as above, in some Khil Mani—_jl Js—but
in other copies it is written yl Jge-— gl Jie and JL Jie Mani, among
other significations, means uncommon, rare, matchless, but what the first word
may signify is doubtful, and is not mentioned in connexion with Sangah in
other places in this work.

‡ In some copies, Hasan, but his brother, Taj-ud-Din, is styled Hasan in
other places, and this brother, Husim-ud-Din, Husain. ’Abd-ul-Malik is
evidently their father’s title. Habaghi is merely a nickname. See pages 368,
394, 1002, and 1006.
` ° Tal-kan of Ehurasan, from the camp at the Pushtah-i-Nu’man. What
our author says is a clear indication of its whereabouts.

1089 THE TABAKAT-I-NASYRI.

the presence of the Chingiz Khan and sat down in a tent.
Uklan,’ the Juzbi, along with whom I had come, together
with some other Ni-ins, were also seated there; and the
greatest in rank among them all was the Juzbi, Uklan.
Some persons brought thither two Mughals who, the pre-
vious night, when on guard around about the camp, had
gone to sleep [upon their post]. Uklan, the Juzbi, asked :
‘What Mughal has brought them?’ The Mughal who
had done so bent'the knee, and replied: ‘I have brought
them.’ The former inquired ; ‘What offence have they
been guilty of ? State 1६ He replied: ‘ These two men
were mounted on horseback, and I was going my rounds
and examining the guards. I came up to them, and found
them both asleep. I struck their horses over their heads
with a whip to let them [the riders] know they were cul-
prits for being asleep ; and I passed on. This day I have
brought them up.’ Uklan, turning his face towards those
two Mughals, said: ‘Were ye asleep?’ They both
acknowledged it, saying: ‘We were.’ He commanded,
saying : ‘Put one of them to death, and fasten his head to
the locks‘ of the other, and parade the latter round the whole
camp, and then put him to death also.’ They [accusers
and accused] all made their obeisance, and, at once, [the
former] carried out the command. I was riveted in asto-
nishment, and said to Uklan, the Juzbr: ‘There was no
evidence or proof on the part of that Mughal [the accuser],
and, when they [the accused] were well aware that the
punishment would be death, why did they confess ? for, if
they had denied [the charge], they would have escaped
being killed’ Uklan, the Juzbi, said ; ‘Why are you asto-

4 A Tattar or Mughal £4argah or tent probably, consisting of felt supported
on props. For a description of them see Rubruquis.

5 Uklan and Ughlan are equally correct—the letters £ and g& are inter-
changeable. He was an Ulkinit Kungkiir-at Mughal, brother of the Juzbi,
Sukati or Sugatii, who commanded the Ulkinit ming or hasdvah, and brother
of the Juzbi, Tilan. They were brothers of the Bat Tingri, Kokjii, and were
the sons of the Nii-yan Manglik, who married the Chingiz Khan's mother.
The term jx2d7 is said to mean true-hearted, and sincere, but our author gives
it another meaning. See page 979.

6 John de Plano Carpini says: ‘‘ They [the Mughals] shave the crown of
the head. They braid their hair behind in two locks, binding each behind the
€ar..... They highly reverence their lords, and never tell them a false

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1081

nished ? You, Tajziks,’ do such things, and tell lies. A
Mughal, were a thousand lives at stake, would choose
being killed, but would not speak false; but false speaking
is your occupation ; ° and, on account of such things, it is
that Almighty God hath sent a calamity like us upon
you [Tajziks].”

I have again returned to the relation of this history.

When the Chingiz Khan, after Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-
barni, Khwarazm Shah, was defeated, set out in pursuit of
the Ighrakis, for Gibari, for a period of three months he
halted among those mountains. He used to go out hunt-
ing, and for the purpose of coming towards Hindist4n,
used, continually, to burn shoulder-blades [of sheep], but
used not to obtain permission [from the prognostications],
and used not to perceive therefrom omens of victory. His
purpose in entering Hindustan was that, mayhap, he might
return back into Chin by way of Lakhanawati and Kam-
rid ; * and, as he used not, fram the portents of the shoulder-
blades, to obtain dispensation to do so, he used to delay.'

7 Here the word Tajzik is applied to the people of ’Ajam generally, whom
the Mughals had a contemptible opinion of, and not to Ghiiris only. Our
author also informs us what Tajik or Tajzik signifies, and, in the face of such
an authority, and a Tajzik himself, it is amusing to find that Surgeon Major
Bellew has discovered, according to the statement of Capt. T. C. Plowden,
B.S.C., in his translation of a book entitled ‘‘ Kalid-i-Afghani,” that they are
“‘a Scythian people, the aborigines of Afghdnistdn ; they still abound there,
as well as in Persia and Turkistan.” In his last book, entitled ‘‘ Afghan-
istan and the Afghans,” page 222, the Doctor has the following on the same
subject. ‘* Another principal people of Afghanistan ts the Tajik or Tazitk. The
term means Arabian, and is applied to anything of Arab origin. .... But
the offspring and descendants of Arabs who married women of the country in
which they settled are called Tasik or Tajik”! See also note at page 1076,
and note >, page 304.

8 In the most trustworthy copies ७० ,/—‘‘ your occupation,” as above: in
others, ‘“‘the business of women.”

१ See the account of Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Bakht-
yar-ud-Din, the Khalj, in Lakhanawati, pages 560—568.

1 His superstition therefore may be said to have saved India from sharing
the fate of other countries, although it is probable he would have met with
more combined and systematic opposition there.

In the spring of the year 620 H. [the spring of 1223 A.D.] the Chingiz
Khan resolved to move, for the reasons stated in a previous note, towards
his native y#rat in Mughalistin, taking the same route as he had entered the
Ghaznin territory by, through Bamian and Tukbaristan, and marched to
Buklan, or Bughlan, both being correct, where his Ughriuk [the families, the
waggons, heavy baggage, felt tents, etc. ] had been sent on his advance towards

3 2

1082 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Unexpectedly, swift messengers reached him from Tam-

Ghaznin. Afi says he moved from the vicinity of Parshawar, by way of the
mountains of Namian [sic in M@SS., but Bamian must be meant], and that the
U ghrik was ordered to march from Buklan to join him on the way to Samr-
kand. At page 1074, our author plainly states where his Ughrik was left, and
that he conversed with a person who had but recently left it [page 1079], and
his statement with regard to it cannot be doubted in the least. It was left at
the Pushtah-i-Nu’man between Tal-kin and Balkh. The pro-Mughal writers,
having made the great blunder of mistaking Tae-kin of Kundiiz for Tal-kin of
Khurdsin, make all other places agree with it, as in the case of Andarab, pre-
viously referred to. The Chingiz Khan may have had his heavy baggage,
waggons, and war materials removed from the Pushtah-i-Nu’man to Buklan
subsequently, after he had determined to return by the same route by which
he had come, and most probably after the attacks made upon them by the
Gharjah chief, as related at page 1073.

To return, however, to the pro-Mughal accounts. The whole of his forces
being concentrated there [at Buklan], the Chingiz Khan continued encamped
in the pleasant pasture-lands thereabout during the summer [of 620 H.—
1223 A.D.]; and, when autumn came round, having appointed Daroghahs to
the different cities of I-ran-Zamin, despatched them[!]. Troops, too, would
have been required, but none are mentioned, and the subsequent proceedings,
after his death, prove that no Mughal troops were left behind in I-ran-Zamin,
1.6. west of the Jihin, and it is very doubtful whether any Daroghahs were.
In the beginning of autumn he crossed the Jihiin, and marched towards Samr-
kand, in the vicinity of which he encamped, and there passed the winter
[620-621 H. = A.D. 1223—1224]. - From Samrkand, Jiji, who, since the
investment of the capital of Khwarazm, was ill-inclined towards his brother
Chaghatae—our author, however, tells the tale differently from the एण
Mughal historians, as will be seen farther on—and had continued to remain m
the Dasht-i-Kibchak, which had been assigned to his charge, was directed to
move, with a portion of his forces, and to keep along the skirts of the moun-
tains to drive the game before him, as a grand hunt was proposed farther in
advance.

Chaghatae and Uktae took up their quarters during that winter near
Bukhara, and devoted themselves to fowling and hunting, and sent weekly to
their father 50 £4ar-wérs of game. When the spring of 621 H. set in, the
Chingiz Khan moved towards Turkistan; and now he showed his fiendish
nature in its true colours. He compelled the unfortunate Turkan Khitin, the
aged mother of the late Sultan, and the ladies of his family—his wives and
daughters, and to whom had been also added the females of Sultan Jalal-ud-
Din’s family captured after the battle on the Sind—to wend their way on foot
[some authors say bare-footed] and bare-headed, in front of his troops on the
line of march, and to raise lamentation, as they went along, on the downfall
and humiliation of their empire, and the death of those Sultans ; and this they
were compelled to do until they reached his y#rat, in order, as he affirmed,
that people might take warning therefrom. This again was partly the innate
hostility of Mughals against the other Turks. Turkan KhAtin lived on in this
miserable state until 630 H., when death relieved her.

Advancing by regular marches, the Chingiz Khan reached the Sihiin, after
which Uktae and Chaghatae also joined him from their expeditions ; and,
‘when he reached a place named Kulain Yazi— yj) .s—but this name is

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1083

ghaj and Tingit, and gave intelligence that the whole

written, Kulan Bazf, and Kuilan Tazi, in as many different authors—supposed
to be situated in the vicinity of Fanakat, but, apparently, farther N.E., Jiji,
from the direction of the Dasht-i-Kibchak, drew near, driving the game on
his side before him. The Chingiz Khan now moved towards him, the two
half-circles of troops dispersed for the purpose, drawing gradually closer
together, and reached a place named Akabar or Akabir—,¥l—or Akair—
z%l—and styled Oka—l,l—in the Raugat-us-Safa [and Oukaeir—Akair ?—
by Pétis de la Croix, but on what authority does not appear, as,
in this particular part of his History of ‘‘ Genghizcan the Great,” he gives
none, and makes it out to be ‘‘the city of Zomncat,”” where subsequently the
kurilide or diet was held, but in no history with which I am acquainted, and
such as I have named, is any reference made to any city, and such a city as
Tonkat or Toncat is never referred to]. The Chingiz Khan now mounted and
entered the circle to enjoy the sport, and after he was satisfied his sons were
permitted to do the same, and subsequently the great chiefs. The sport over,
the remainder of the animals received a brand on one of the thighs, and were
allowed to escape. After this Jiji presented himself on bended knee, with
offerings for his father’s acceptance, among which were 100,000 horses, every
20,000 of which were of different colours—dappled grey, white, piebald, bay,
and black, his father’s troops being in want of horses.

The Chingiz Khan continued encamped in this place during the summer of
this year (621 H.], and, all his sons and Amirs having joined him from all
parts, including Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahidah], he now held a great
kuriltae or assembly. He distributed honours and rewards, and put to deatha
number of the I-ghiir chiefs ; why is not said, but it no doubt had reference,
in some way, to the dismissal of the 2४८25 of the Yiddi-Kiit, mentioned in
note 1, page 1101, and evidently refers to what the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir men-
tions in a few words, that, on his arrival in this part, he received the submis-
sion of the petty rulers around, but that some, who, at the outset, were the
frst to submit to him, now showed symptoms of hostility, and a body of troops
had to be sent to coerce them. Their names are not given. Jiji was now
allowed to return to his government of the Daght-i-Kibehak, and, in the last
month of the year 621 H. [Dec.-Jan., 1225 A.D.], after an absence of seven
years, the Chingiz Khan reached his native yérat in Mughalistin—the
Chinese say, on the banks of the Tula yiver—and again enjoyed the society of
his wives and children.

At this point I come toa very amusing matter, and which also is a specimen
of history-writing taken from translations often second-hand, a somewhat
dangerous course of procedure. At page 92 of ^ Mongols Proper,” the
author, immediately after stating that ‘‘ Jagatai and Ogotai went to hunt
Kukus and Karaguls (i.e. wild swans and antelopes)””—I have already stated
how Chaghatae and Uktae employed the winter near Bukbara—says that,
‘*On the banks of the [णा] he (Jingis) was met by two of his grandsons, after-
wards very celebrated, namely, Kubilai [he is afterwards styled Ahudil/as] and
Khulagu, one eleven and the other nine years old. They had killed their first
game, and, according to Mongol custom, Fingis pricked their middle fingers to
mix some blood with their food and drink, a kind of baptism of the chase.
Afterwards he gave his army a €, at a place called Buka Suchiku, and
reached his Ordu or home [camp ?] in the month of February, 1225. This
appears to have been taken from Erdmann, and, at page 99, this féte is again

3 Z 2

1084 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.

territories of Chin, Tamghaj, and Tingit, were in a state of
revolt, and that, on account of the very great distance [of
the Chingiz Khan from the scene], those kingdoms were
about to pass out of the hands of the Mughal governors.
The Chingiz Khan, on account of this information, became
anxious in mind, and he consequently set out on his return
by way of Lob and the country of Tibbat.’

referred to as a ‘‘grand reception,” as though a wholly different affair ; and,
in a note at page 716, on ‘‘Jinjis Khan ” crossing the Jaxartes, and before the
‘**Kukus and Karaguls ” [the 4argawal, by-the-bye, is a pheasant, and Shaw, I
believe, brought some specimens with him from Turkistan] are referred to, the
writer says, ‘‘ Before leaving Transoxianah Jingis, who had been joined by his
sons, seems to have held a grand féte at Benaket or Tonkat This was in 1224.
It is described by De la Croix, but his description is a mere rhetorical display
without facts.” Now, considering that the author of the ‘‘ Mongols Proper”
has referred to this very ‘‘ féte” in two other places, and as happening at two
different times, and in two different localities, on which side have we ‘‘ mere
rhetorical display without facts” ?

The facts of the ‘‘ baptism of the chase” are these, and no doubt Erdmann,
in some way, derived them from the same original source whence also I take
mine :—‘‘ When the Chingiz Khan reached the neighbourhood of his native
yurat, it is said, Hulaki Khan was nine years old, and Kihbila Khan two
years older. They both came out to meet him [their grandfather], and, by the
way, & 10112 had captured a hare, and Hulakii a small deer [with dogs, pro
bably]; and, as it is a custom among the Mughals, on the first occasion of
boys capturing game, to evoint the middle finger with flesh and fat of the
game, which anointing is termed (,“e|—aghimeshi—the Chingiz Khan
anointed the fingers of his grandsons himself, petted them much, and gavé
feasts and banquets to celebrate the event.”

The winter of 622 H. [A.D. 1224-5] was passed by the Chingiz Khan in
pleasure and jollity in his own y#rat, but, during this time, news reached hia
of the hostility of Shidarkii, the Hakim or ruler of Kashin, who had assembled
a vast army, intending to throw off the Mughal yoke. The historians I quote
from appear to have lost sight of the fact that the alarming state of the Ting-
kiit country, or Kashin, as it is also called, and the revolt there, had, as our
author says above, brought the Mughal sovereign back from west of the [प
The Chingiz Khan now re-assembled his forces, and commenced his march
towards the territory of Kashin. It was determined that Chaghatie, with his
forces, should guard the rear of the «rd#, or, in other words, form the reserve.
Tuli, through one of his Khatiins being attacked with small-pox, was unable
to accompany his father, and followed some time after, but Uktae accompanied
him. In this same year likewise, and about this time, the news of the death
of his eldest son, Jiji, in the Daght-i-Kibchak, reached him. The sons of
Uktie, Kiitin, our author’s Kutan, and Kiwak, were now sent back to the
ytrat under the care of a trusty person.

What follows next in the account of the Chingiz Khin’s movements before
his death, in the writers I am quoting, is so different from our author's
accounts, that I must make that subject the matter of another note.

2 These names vary considerably in the different copies of the text, but the
above rendering is without doubt correct, though it is only by comparing the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1085

When he reached that territory [Tingit], there was a
Khan in the country of Tingit, a man of great energy and
intrepidity, and he had an army and munitions and war
materials beyond computation; and, on account of the
multitude of his troops, the power of his servants, the am-
plitude of his dominions, the vastness of his riches, wealth,
and treasures, he had assumed to himself the name of “the
Tingri Khan.”* On several occasions the Mughal troops

whole of the copies that it could be arrived at. It is also confirmed by
others. The best copies have ew od 3 wy) some Hg SH 4 Wy otherse-z oy 5 3
and J and caw

The explorations of Col. Prejevalsky about Lob Nawar and the mountain-
range to the south, the existence of which some people had the assurance
altogether to ignore, confirm the correctness of our author’s statement, and
extent of his information, and also that possessed by the Jesuits.

> Our author’s account of the events of this period differs considerably
from that of the other Muhammadan writers who followed him, and who
appear unable, or unwilling, to write aught unpalatable to the Mughal rulers,
whose subjects and emfleyds they were, and is also very different from the
Chinese annals of Gaubil and others. Passing over the little episode respecting
the milk-coloured blood of the Tingri Khan, which is much after the fashion
of the ‘‘ Saga-loving Ssanang Setzen’s” childish fables, of ‘‘the brown-coloured
dog with a black muzzle which could prophesy,” and the like, the accounts
our-author gives appear well worthy of credence, and are, no doubt, such as
were related to him, as in other instances, probably, by actors in the events
he records.

We may therefore receive with some reserve the statements of the pro-
Mughal writers who followed our author, and be somewhat sceptical as to the
defeats sustained by the Tingri Khan, Shidarki, on the previous occasions
as related by them [See note at page 949]; for, had that ruler been reduced to
such a state of helplessness, as they mention, how could he have again
managed to acquire such power, and assemble such an immense army ?

The following is, briefly, what the other, and subsequent Musalman
writers say on the subject.

The Chingiz Khan having reached the territory of Tingkit, otherwise called
Kashin, succeeded in possessing himself of the cities of Kam-jiw, Ka-jii, Sujii,
and Arimi or Urimi, and invested the city of Tingai or Tangai— 6४5
[this is the same doubtless as the Ning-hya of the Chinese, as [~] t and
[७] n may be easily mistaken in AZSS.], and set it on fire in several places.
Shidarki—,3,4.2—the Tingri Khan of our author, and Shidaskii of some
other writers, and the Ly-Hyen of the Chinese, but never styled “‘ Khakan”
in any history I have met with—the Badshah of Kaghin, whom, in the
language of Tingkiit, they style by the title of Li-wain—y',/—[the Layau of
Europeans] moved from his capital, which, in the Tingkit language, they style
Irki or Iriki— 32! —and the Mughals call Irkia, or Irikia—\s,!—and which
is also written Irkiah—s3,|—with filty ¢omdns of troops— 500,000 — [this
IS a one-stded statement it must be remembered], and advanced to encounter
the Mughal sovereign, who, likewise, made ready to meet him. When they
came in contact a desperate battle ensued, and such a vast number were

1086 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

had invaded his territory, but had not overcome him or

slain on the side of Shfdarkii, but some say, as is most probable, on either
side, that three corpses were found, after the battle, standing on thar heads !
Among the Mughals it has become firmly established [in their minds ?] that,
for every ten fomdans—100,000 persons—slain on the battle-field, one of the
killed stands on its head [sic in AZSS.]. The author of the «न Mongols Proper”
(p. 102) has got hold of this fable through some foreign translation, but the trans-
lator has made a muddle of it. Certainly ‘‘the great Raschid”’ never made
such an error in telling it. Mr. Howorth’s version of it is as follows: ‘‘The
story of Raschid about the man standing on his head is explained by D’Ohsson,
who says, that, when the Mongols slaughtered a large number of people, zs
order to mark the number of the slain, a census in which they gloried, they put
a corpse on its head on some elevated point for every thousand killed.” !!
There is nothing like a bold translation perhaps when a person may be in
doubt.

At length, Shidarkii, unable to make any further resistance, took to flight,
much to the joy of the Mughals, who considered themselves fortunate in
obtaining this success, and shut himself up in his stronghold, the city of Iriki
or Irikia, but which Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur, in the Kazan edition of his
work, styles Kachti. The Chingiz Khan remarked that, as Shidarkii had
been so utterly defeated in this battle, and his territory devastated, he would
have no more strength left to him, since great part of his troops had been slain.
So, holding him of little importance, and passing his city without molesting
it [he must have left a force to watch it], but plundering, slaughtering, and
devastating the territory of Kishin, the Chingiz Khan turned his face towards
Khita, and, when spring came round, he determined to move against the terti-
tories of Tingnash—*s—{See third para. farther on] and Khiirjah—s,—
but, before he could carry out his intentions respecting them, he had an awful
dream which warned him that his end was near, and he became very much
agitated in mind in consequence. He is also said to have received intimation
about this time of the death of the Khalifah, Un-Nasir B’illah, who died in
Shawwal, 622 H. When he awoke from his dream, he inquired of Baisuka Aki,
his nephew, the son of Jiiji Kasar, who was in attendance: ^ Are my sons
Uktae and (तां distant or near?” As they were in their own गदः, with
their forces, Baisikii Aka replied that they might not be more than two or
three farsangs distant. The Khan said: ‘‘Let them bring them hither ;”
and, when they presented themselves the following day, along with the great
Anirs, after partaking of the morning meal, the Chingiz Khan turned his
face towards the assemblage and said: ‘‘I have some counsel to hold with’
my sons, and a confidential matter which I wish to communicate to them, and
desire to be private with them for a short time.”

When the Amirs and others who were then present withdrew, the Chingiz
Khan turned towards his sons and said: ‘*‘My beloved ones, the time
approaches for me to take my last journey, and the period of my dissolution
is at hand! By the power of the Almighty, and the aid of Providence, 1
have acquired and consolidated [not very consolidated west of the [पण at
least, and in very few, if in any, places had [ntendants even been established,
much less troops located, at this period, but certainly there were ample
proofs of the butchery and desolation he and his barbarian hordes had
committed] for you an empire, so extensive, that from one side of it to the
other is one year’s journey. I wish to ask of you who, by your counsel, is

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM, 1087

subdued his country, and many times he had overcome the

the person most befitting to succeed me.” Uktde, Chaghatae, and Tilf —for
he was also present according to some of my authorities, but Jiji had recently
died in the Dasht-i-Kibchak—bent the knee, and replied :—‘‘ Our father is
sovereign, and we are his servants, and will obey what he commands.” The
Great Khan replied: ‘‘I have implicit faith, in all things, in the wisdom and
experience of Karacbar, and desire his opinion, and whom he approves of I
will appoint.” Having received the opinion of that Nii-yin, the Chingiz
Khan directed that the Covenant entered into in by-gone times by Kabal
Khan and the Bahadur, Ka-jili, bearing the Al-Tamghah of Tumna-f
Khan, which had descended to him from his ancestors, and to which his
forefathers had also appended their names [see the note on the Turks at
page 896] should be brought from the treasury. This having been done,
it was shown to his sons; and he continued :—‘‘ I name Uktae as Khan, and
appoint him my successor, and make over the throne to him. Do ye likewise
act in accord one with another, and enter likewise into a Covenant that ye
will not deviate from his commands, and that ye will attend his kiriltaes.”
This they did ; and the Covenant was attested by the Amirs and Ministers.
He also requested that the mother of Uktde, Biirtah Kiichin, should exercise
the sovereign authority over the w/#sis until such time as a kiriltae should
assemble to confirm Uktae’s succession, which would be two years. He
further commanded that, as the countries of Mawara-un-Nahr and other
territories adjoining it had previously been assigned by him to Chaghatae, and
as there were ancient [sic in A7SS.] foes still existing between I-ran and Taran,
namely Sultan Jalal-ud-Din and his brother, he would make over Chaghatie
to the paternal charge of Karachar; and urged that Nii-yin to act towards
his son as he had acted before towards himself, his father, and continue to
give Chaghatiae the benefit of his assistance in the government of the affairs
of his dominions. He also caused Chaghatae and Karachfar to enter into a
Covenant as father and son; and the last-mentioned Covenant was made
over to Chaghatae’s charge, and that previously mentioned, between the
brothers, to Uktae. ‘*‘The Great Khan further requested, that, when his
death should happen, no lamentations whatever were to be made, and that
it should be kept a profound secret [‘the ruling passion’ of treachery was
‘strong even in death’] ; and that as soon as Shidarki, the king of Kashin,
should leave his city and come to the Mughal camp, as he had agreed to do,
he should be put, at once, to death, in order that firm possession of his territory
Might be secured. Having said this, he closed his eyes, and thou mightest
have said that the Chingiz Khan had never existed.”

Alfi, quoting Hafiz ^ णठ, and other authorities, differs considerably from
the above in some points. It states that, after settling the succession, at which
Chaghatide was not present, the Chingiz Khin requested his sons, Uktae and
Talf, to return to their own tribes and territories, that is such tribes and
countries as had been entrusted to them, lest Chaghatae, who was not
present, might not act according to his father’s commands, and might raise
sedition in the empire ; and he further urged them, for the sake of his good
name and fame, to observe his laws and regulations.

Uktae and Tiili took leave of their father, and returned to their respective
posts, while the Chingiz Khan, with a numerous army, marched towards the
country of Tingnash— *% [which may even be more correctly Ningaish
— AG It is written in various ways. The Raugat-us-Safa has Tang-

1०88 = THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Chingiz Khan in battle. At the period that the Chingiz

tabash —4:'6—while others have Biktash— st%,—but the first mode
of writing is contained in the majority of trustworthy writers], and Khutrjah
—s,y+ When he reached them, the Badshahs of those countries were
ready to become tributary, and to submit to him. On reaching a place named
Liwak-shin—,l* Gs/—which is on the frontier boundary between Khirjah,
Tingnash, or Biktash, and Tingkit, the Badshah—also styled Wali—of
Khiirjah [the Kin emperor according to the translations from the Chinese
annals, but from what subsequently happens in the reigns of Uktae and
Mangi this is contrary to fact] despatched envoys, with numerous and valuable
presents for his acceptance, among which was a bowl of the finest pearls, and
to tender their sovereign’s submission and obedience. The Chingiz Khan
commandcd that such among those present at that time in his assembly, as had
their ears bored, should be presented with pearls, while those, whose ears were
not already bored, had them bored very quickly, and received pearls also;
and, notwithstanding this, a great number of pearls remained undistributed.
The Chingiz Khan commanded, saying, ‘‘ It is a day of largess: let the pearls
be scattered that people may pick them up.” This was done; and, in con-
sequence, a number of pearls were lost in the ground, and for a long time after
that pearls used to be found there

About this time Shidarkii, Badshah of Kashin, who had shut himself up in
his capital, Irtakia, Irikia, or Irikiah, sent an envoy to the Chingiz Khan to
intimate that, if the Mughal Khan would enter into a Covenant with him,
stipulating for his safety and security, he would, within the period of one
month, come in person to his wrd#, and present pesgh-kash, which is
equivalent to doing homage. The Chingiz Khan gave the required guaran-
tees, and confirmed them with most solemn oaths ; and the envoy departed.

After the envoy had gone, the Chingiz Khan was taken ill, and grew
excessively weak ; and, from an awful dream which he had, waming him
of his approaching death, he was much disturbed. It was at this time,
according to the authority 1 have named, that he sent for his sons, and
appointed his successor: the remainder agrees with the statements of other
writers. His death, as he desired, was kept a profound secret; and, when
Shidarki, Badshah of Tingkit or Kashin—he is styled so indiscriminately—
according to the terms agreed upon, left his capital, the city of Irtakia, and
drew near the Mughal camp, the Ni-yins and Amirs came forth to receive
him, and escorted him and his train, as though about to lead him to the pre-
sence of the Chingiz Khan, but, on their arriving within a short distance of the
urd, a body of Mughals, posted for the purpose, fell upon Shidarki and his
followers, and butchered the whole of them. An army was then despatched
to Irtakia, which the Mughals entered, plundered, and massacred its in-
habitants, and then desolated the country round. Such is Alfi’s account.

The death of the Chingiz Khan took place on the 4th of Ramagan, 624 H. ;
in the Turkish year of Tunguz or the Hog, which was the year of his birth,
his ascending the throne, and of his decease, which last date is equivalent
to the 16th of August, 1227 A.D. A few writers say 623 H. He had reigned
25 years, and his age was 75 : some authors say 73, but, as he was born on
the 20th of Zi-Ka’dah, 549 प्र. [See note, page 398], he was exactly 75 years,
1 month, and 10 days old [our author says he was 65 when he came into
Khurasan. See page 1077], whatever Abii-1-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, or Father
Gaubil have said to the contrary; and he was certainly too old to have

IRRUPTION OF THE INEIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1089

Khan returned from the land of ’Ajam, and the countries

“coveted” the wife of the so-called ^ Shidurgho,” as we are told he did in
“‘ Mongols Proper.”

Having carried out their father’s last instructions, the sons of the deceased
Khan proceeded to perform the funeral ceremonies according to the custom
of their people. There was no secrecy whatever after Shidarkii had been
put to death, and his capital secured ; and there was no killing every one they
met. °

Bentinck censures Marco Polo for relating, that, ‘‘in his time, the Tartars
were accustomed, at the funerals of their Khans, to slay all those they met in
the way, and that they slew all whom they met on the way to the place
appointed for the sepulchre of Jenghiz Kh4n ; and that, a little before [true :
a (4४८ before} his arrival in Grand Tartary, there had been 20,000 persons
massacred in that manner, at the interment of Mangu तिक्रा), grandson of the
conqueror.” Bentinck further remarks, and quite correctly too, that none of the
Eastern authors, who have written on the Tartars [Mughals?], charge them
with ‘‘such an abominable custom.” He adds, that ‘‘in Grand Tartary ”—he
means Mughalistan and the Mughals—the inhabitants live so dispersed in
their khargahs or huts, that one might travel several hundred leagues without
meeting a thousand. Polo too kills the Chingiz Khan six years only after
his defeat of the ^ Um” Khan, as he styles the Awang Khan, and asserts that
he was shot in the knee by an arrow before the castle of Thaigin !

Pétis de la Croix. who often quotes ‘‘the great Raschid,” very correctly
says [page 382]: “ There is no likelihood that the barbarous custom, which has
since been practised amongst the Zartars and Moguls, to kill those they meet
in the way, when they are carrying to the grave the body of a Grand Can,
was at this time observed; for the historians mention no such thing, and,
besides, this custom is not countenanced by the law.” The custom of burial
among the Mughals is given in detail by our author farther on.

After performing the funeral ceremonies—the preliminary mourning—the
bier of the Great Khan was taken up, and his army set out on their return
homeward, and the bier was in due time conveyed to his xrdizs in the locality of
his ancient y#rat, which was ‘‘ within the limits of,” not a4, Kara-Kuram. The
corpse was finally buried at the foot of a large and solitary tree, under which,
one day, when following the chase—not when he was ‘‘ill ”—he had rested,
and at which time he remarked : ‘‘ This place is suitable for my sepulchre.”
The place in question is called Bilkan Kaldiin, according to some authorities,
and Barkan Kaldiin by others, including Abii-ul-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, which
ts merely the change of /for 7. After the burial, the place was proscribed against
intrusion from one generation to another, the word used to denote it is 533 or
gJ—an ’Arabic word signifying ‘‘confiscated,’’ ‘‘ prohibited,” ‘‘ embargo,”
“ban,” ete., and it was called the 3 &—‘‘the exclusive or especially
prohibited place,” which words appear to be the translation of Birkan
Kaldin. The Ta-ishi, Yasi Buka, the Uhiid Urmangkit of the race of
Kaian, was the Korchi or guardian of the spot, which guardianship appertained
exclusively to his tribe, who were, in consequence, exempted from all other
duties and services.

It is likewise stated, as a wonderful fact, that, in that same year, that plain
—l|,«e-—thus showing that it was a plain, and neither ‘‘a mountain ” nor ‘‘a
cave”"— became totally destitute of grass on account of the numerous trees
of various kinds which grew up therein, and soon became such a dense forest

1090 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

of Islam, this Tingri Khan held counsel with his Maliks

that one could not pass through it ; and, the place being alike inaccessible and
interdicted from curiosity, the exact whereabouts of the burial-place of the
Chingiz Khan became wholly unknown. Tili his son, who died about four
years after, was also buried there. The Habib-us-Siyar distinctly states that
the Chingiz Khan’s body was taken back to Kara-Kuram and buried in that
neighbourhood, and that no human being was permitted to invade the spot ;
and this agrees with what other authors state, as given above, and the bunal
customs of the Mughals.

It is amusing to read, in the face of the statements of authors who wrote
their histories in the territories of the Mughal sovereigns, with the best means
of obtaining information on such a point, and about which there is absolutely
nothing to conceal, the various theories of European writers. Pétis de la
Croix, after stating that the spot was proscribed from the visitation of any one,
says: ‘*They buried him there [under the tree] with all the pompous cere-
monies of the A/ogu/ religion, and afterwards erected a most noble monument
in this Place upon his Grave”?! Where is the native historian who ever said
so, or whoever once mentioned such things as ‘‘the pompous ceremonies of
the Mogul religion”? All this is purely imaginary. Again he says:
° {€ people, who came to visit the Tomb, planted other Trees round it,
which so artfully covered it, and in such beautiful Order, as rendered it in
time one of the finest Monuments in the World”! He, however, quotes no
authorities for these highly-coloured statements, and, moreover, buries him in
५५ Tangut,” which is totally incorrect.

Gaubil says he was buried ‘‘ in the cave of Ki-nyen, in a mountain to the north
of the sandy desert, and that his posterity were also buried there. Several
Mughal lords of his posterity, whom he met at Pekin, he says, informed him
that the Chingiz Khan was buried on the mountain of Han, in Lat. 47° 54,
Long. 9° 3’ W. of Pekin. Another writer, not named, says the place of his
burial was called Sali-chwen, and that the Chinese word chwen denotes ‘‘ the
Sali to have been a place full of fountains [springs ?], lakes, and hills.” The
statement of Erdmann, p. 444, agrees nearest with the Oriental writers, but
D’Ohsson’s, vol. 1. p. 381, seems purely mythical.

But why need I mention all this? Has not Professor Forbes himself dis-
covered not only the place of burial, but even the tomb in which the corpse
was enclosed? I wonder he did not discover Tili’s tomb also, for he was
buried there too. Ina paper read before the British Association in September,
1876, he asserts [but what are the proofs 7] that it lies “almost a day’s journey
from Urga, viz, from twenty to twenty-five miles, and that ‘‘the tomb consists
of a stone structure which is now level with the ground ; there is a circle of
stone ten feet thick, and one hundred yards in diameter, and in the centre of
this there is a circle which has once beena covered building, some fifteen yards
in diameter,” etc., etc. Did not he “discover ” an inscription too? If it isa
Mughal tomb, look Je/ow ground, not above, seeing what our author and
others say with regard to Mughal modes of sepulture.

I must say a few words respecting the wives and children of the Chingiz
Khan before closing the notice of him, as European writers have rendered the
names of them even more unintelligible than those of his four famous sons.

He is said to have had 500 Khatiins [wives] and concubines, every one of
whom was taken from some tribe or other after he had reduced or conquertd
it. Some were married to him according to the Mughal rites and customs,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1091
and Amirs, saying: “The Chingiz Khan is come. On

but most of them were such as had been carried off, and were kept in his
haram. Those who were held in the highest respect and esteem were the
following five :—

` 1. BORTAH KOCHIN— ype 3,9 She was neither called ^ Burte
Fudshin” nor ^" Burte Fudshin,” and consequently, whether ‘‘ Fudshin”
or ^ Fougin’”’ was the title given by the Chinese Emperors to those of their
wives who ranked “immediately after the Empress,” or whether not, these
names and titles do not appertain to Biirtah Kuchin, who was the Chingiz
Khan’s chief wife. She was the daughter of the Nii-yin, Dae, the Badshah, as
he is styled, of the Kungkur-at Mughals, which was one of the most numerous,
and distinguished for valour, as well as one of the proudest of the whole of the
Nairin tribes, one reason for which is stated to have been that, in issuing from
Irganah-Kiin, they led the way, and such was their celerity in doing so, that
they burnt their feet on the ironstone not yet become cool.

They are Nairiin Mughals beyond the shadow of a doubt, and yet the
author of the ‘‘ Mongols Proper” informs us, at p. 703, ५.८ have small doubt
that they were Turks, for although small caxs still survive among the Mongols
who are called Khongkiras (i.e. Kunkurat), by Ssanang Setzen, there is no
tribe among them which bears the name, while we find that one of the four
main divisions of the Uzbegs is called Kiat Kungrat,”’ etc., etc. The author
has made a very delightful muddle here. The Kungkur-ats are truly Turks
of the Mughal i-mak, but Nairin Mughals, of which Kaiat is one of
the two great divisions, and perhaps he is not aware that the Ozbaks are
Mughals, whence the term Kaiat-Kungkur-at. There are Kungkur-ats, Kan-
kulis, and many other tribes mentioned in these notes, still to be found im
Turkistan and Mughalistin. Mir ’Abd-ul-Karim, Bukhari, who wrote in
1222 H.—1807 A.D.—continually refers to them in his work ; and some of the
Kashghar Mission actually met a “Kirghiz who was a Nayman,” and
‘*Yuldiz Kalmak who are Turgut and Koshot !”

When the Chingiz Khan was defeated by the Makrits, his Kungkur-at wife
was taken captive, and made over by them to the Awang Khan, their Sovercign.
She is said to have been pregnant of Jiji at the time ; and the Awang Khan,
out of his former friendship for the husband, treated her with respect, and sent
her back when the Chingiz Khan demanded her. Jiji was born on the way
home ; and his appearance on the scene appears to have been unexpected, for
his name, given in consequence, signifies ‘‘the unexpected guest.” I may have
to refer to this circumstance.again, farther on.

Birtah Kichin subsequently bore three other sons—Chaghatie, Uktie, and
Tuli, and five daughters, who were, in due time, married to different Mughal
and other chiefs, who, with a single exception, are styled Girgan, signifying,
in the Turki language—not the ‘‘ Chinese,” I believe—son-in-law. One of
these sons-in-law, a son of the chief of the Kungkur-at, had previously borne
the title of Giirgan, but I have not space for much detail

2. KULAN KHATON, daughter of Ta’ir Asiin, the chief of the Orhar Makrit
tribe. Her father submitted to the sway of the Chingiz Khan, and brought
his daughter, and presented her as an offering to him. Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur
Khan, ignores her altogether, in his History, and substitutes Kor-Basi, the
widow of the Tayanak Khan, who is mentioned as one of his wives of
lesser degree farther on. Kilan Khatiin had a son by the Chingiz Khan
named Kilakin— ७४1४-0 Kilakin—,95—who was assigned rank, in

1092 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

several previous occasions we have fought with him and

every way, equal to the other sons of the Chingiz Khan. He died early,
leaving several sons, and one of them, Kiichah, succeeded to his father’s rank
and position, and the command of the 6000 men, which the Chingiz Khan had
conferred upon him.

3. YASSUKAN, a Tattar lady, whose name, in some Histories, is written
Tassiikan, but it appears that the two poi»ts of the first letter— , —in this
instance have been carelessly written 5 with the points over instead of under.
She bore a son, who was named Ujar, but he died in his youth.

4. Kony0 KHATON, daughter of the Altan Khan of Khitie. She was by
no means good-looking, but, as her father was the greatest sovereign of that
age, she was treated with respect accordingly. She bore no children, and was
still living, in her own wrdz, in the time of Arti or Artuk Baka.

5. YASSULON, sister of Yassiikan the third wife, but married to the Chingiz
Khan after the death of her sister.

Besides these were other Khiatiins, who, although not considered so high in
rank or position, were nevertheless treated with great reverence, and some-
times would monopolize the company of their husband. One of these was
ANIKAH—4ai3|—Khitin, daughter of the Jakambi, also written Jankabi,
the brother of the Awang Khan. His name is said to have been Badae—
uly After the overthrow and death of his brother, he took shelter in
Tingkiit, where he obtained protection, and was treated with honour. The
Badshah of that country gave him the title of Jakambi, equivalent to
‘‘Dsimbi,” in ‘‘Degum Dsambi,” and ‘* Mathi Dsambi,” etc., in Tibbati
titles. Jakambii signifies ^" Amfr-i-Mu’azzam,” and ^" Buzurg-i-Mamlakat.”
The Chingiz Khan espoused her, and married one of her sisters, named
Biktimish Kichin, to his son, Jiji, and another, अ Kukibf Bigi, to Tuli,
and all four sons of Tilt Khan were by her. After the Chingiz Khan had
married Anikah a few days only, in consequence of a dream which he had, he
gave her in marriage to one of his Amirs, the Ni-yin, Gahti, also called Gatt,
the Ora-it [he is turned into ‘‘a dyer on the borders of China,” in the ^° Afongals
Proper” ‘], who happened to be the Amir in waiting that night.

Another of the Chingiz Khan’s Khiatiins was Kor-BAs0, the widow and
chief Khatiin of the Tayanak Khan, Badshah of the Naemans. She was
brought to him sometime after the Tayanak Khan’s death ; and, according to
the Mughal custom, the Chingiz Khan entered into bonds of marriage with
her.

Besides these Khatiins he had many others, the daughters of Sultans
(Mughal and Tattar Chiefs ?]and Amirs ; and he also had a son named Jirjin,
by a lady of the Naeman tribe, who died before any other of his children;
and another son named Jifan or Arjifan, who died in childhood. His mother
was of the Tattar i-mak.

The Great Khan likewise adopted a boy of-the Tingkit tribe, in his
eleventh year, and brought him up; and was wont to style him his fifth son.
He was the Nii-yan, Jifan, who had a great name for valour, and was the
` Basb-ligh or Chief of the Khas or Personal Ming—in the Tajzik language
signifying Hazirah—of the Chingiz Khan, which was limited to 1000 persons ;
and from it many of the chief officials and leaders were chosen. In Uktie
Ka'an’s reign, when he was despatched into Khitde, Jifan adopted a son him-
self, who was also a Tingkit, named Biirah, taken captive as a child of three
years, who was from the wrdé# of Birtah Kichin, as were many other

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1093

defeated him. Now he has returned, and his forces have

eminent officers serving in the Khas Ming or Haza4rah as Sadhahs—leaders of
hundreds—but I have not space to mention more than one—the Bawirchi,
Birki, of the Dirban tribe, who was the grandfather of Fulad Aka, from whom
the Khwajah, Rashid-ud-Din, the Hamadani, obtained information respect-
ing his account of the Mughals compiled from the Altan Daftar, or Golden
Record, and verified its contents. Alfi says, quoting other authorities, that
Jifan was held in such high esteem and honour, that, in Uktae’s reign, he used
to sit higher, on public occasions, than his brother Mangi, afterwards supreme
ruler of the Mughal empire.

The Chingiz Khan had yet another adopted son, a Tattar. When his tribe
was attacked and plundered by the hostile Mughal tribes, a little boy was
found by them weeping in his cradle. Biirtah Kiichin, at that time, had borne
her husband no children, and she adopted the child, and brought him up. He
subsequently rose to high rank : his correct name was Shiki Kutiki, com-
mander of the Tattar Ming or Hazarah. He is one of the leaders who was
overthrown by Sultan Jalal-ud-Din. See page 289.

The total number of the Chingiz Khan’s children was thirteen—eight sons
and five daughters—and yet Pétis de la Croix says he had ‘‘a prodigious
number of children.”

I intended to have given here a list of the whole of the Chingiz Khan’s
Mings or Hazarahs, but I have not space for them.

The Contingents instituted by the Chingiz Khan, which were all. cavalry,
consisted of a Khas or Personal Ming, or Hazarah, a Kol or Centre, a
Buranghar, or Right Wing, so styled, and a Juwanghar, or Left Wing, also called
the Jak. The word Hazarah, which is Tajzik or Persian, must not be supposed
to be the actual name by which these Contingents were called by the Mughals,
for it is not—nor is it the name of a tribe, as Mr. Dowson, in ELLIOT’s HIsTo-
RIANS [vol. vi., page 368] imagines—‘‘ the famous tribe of Hazarah,” as he
styles them. The word is the mere translation of the Turki word ming, a
thousand. The number, too, was but nominal in many instances, since there
were two Hazarahs of 10,000 men each, one of 8000, and several others of a
higher number than a thousand. See note, page 984.

The Buranghar contained 30,000 men in 22 Hazarahs. Out of these there
was one of Uirat Mughals [vul. Virats], 4000; one of Barin Mughals, 2000 ;
another of Ungkit Turks, 4000; and one of various Kaiat tribes, 10,000.
The Nii-yin, Burji or Birjin, the Arlat, was its head.

The Juwanghiar, consisted of 25 Hazadrahs, among which was the Urit
Hazirah, 4000 men ; the Angiras Kungkur-ats, 3000 ; the Kungkur-ats, 5000 ;
the Barins, 3000; and another of Kungkur-ats, of 4000. Besides the other
Mughal Hazdrahs, there was one Hazarah of Kara-Khita-is of 10,000 men,
and another styled the Khirjah Hazarah of 10,000 men. Its head was the
Ni-yin Mikali, the Jala-fr, surnamed The Ko-yang, signifying in the language
of Khitae, the Great Khan.

The contingents assigned to the Chingiz Khan’s sons and brothers, and their
sons, his mother, and other relatives, amounted to 28,000. His eldest son
Jaji’s contingent numbered 4000 in four Hazarahs, consisting of the tribes of
ऽणः, Kangit, Hoghin, also called Ushin, and Suntie [ट]. The contingent
of his second son, Chaghat&e, amounted to the same number, also consisting
of four Hazarahs, of the tribes of Barlas, Karayat, Siinfat, and Sildis.

Some recent Indian history compilers have made sad errors in connexion

1094 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
become very numerous, and he is proceeding against the

with these four tribes assigned to Chaghatie Khan—Chaghatae’s tribes.
These writers have assumed that there was a great and distinct tribe called
“‘Chagtae,’”” or ^^ Chugtar,” as a recent author wmites it, and a ^ Chagtae
language”! Some have even gone so far [see “ Zhe Turks in Indta,’’ by
Henry George Keene, M.R.A.S., Judge of Agra, etc. : London: 1879] as to
assert that Babar, who founded the Mughal empire in India, was not a
Mughal, but a ^ Chugtae Turk.” He was a Barlas Mughal [see note, page
898] pure and simple, of the race of Kaiat. It is quite time such fallacies
should be given to the winds.

The contingent of his third son, Uktae, formed four Hazarahs of the
same number as those of his other two brothers, consisting of the Hazarahs of
Jala-ir Yamkalin or Bamkalin [७५५७० ?] a branch of the Sildiis, Mangkiit, and
Siiniat. After Ukt&e came to the throne, the whole of his personal troops
consisted of men of these four tribes.

The share of Kilakan, another son of the Chingiz Khan, and to whom he was
greatly attached, numbered 4000, in four Hazarahs, consisting of men of the
Birlas, and other tribes.

These four Mings or Contingents in all numbered 16,000 horse.

The Chingiz Khan conferred a contingent to the number of 5000 upon his
younger brother, O-Tigin, or Aw-Tigin, as it is also spelt, consisting of
Urad Kalangkits, Baisiits, Jiri-ats, also called Jajar-dts, and small numbers
of many of the other tribes not included in the previously mentioned Hazarahs.
The contingent of the sons of [पीं Kasar, another brother of the Chingiz
Khan, consisted of 1000 men drawn from several tribes ; and that of Ilchidiae,
or Ilchikdae, son of Kajbiin, a third brother of the Chingiz Khan, who died
in his youth, numbered 3000 horse, consisting of Naem4ns, Uri-angkut, and
some other scattered tribes. The contingent of his mother, Ulin Ankah,
numbered 3000 Kirlas and Ulkiinits.

At the time of his decease the Chingiz Khan assigned the whole of his
02521, or personal troops, and all the Hazarahs of the Centre, Right, and
Left, consisting of 101,000 men, and his y#rats, to his youngest son, Tillie or
Tuli, who always continued with him, and who, in his lifetime, commanded
them, under himself, hence no separate contingent appertained to him ; and,
after Tili’s decease, they fell to the share of his sons, Mangi, Kibilae, and
others.

It must be understood that these were contingents always kept up by the
Princes, Nii-yins, Juzbis, and Bahadurs, to whom they were assigned, and not
as being the entire amount, by any means, of the Chingiz Khan’s forces.
They were capable of being expanded at any time. That such was usual, we
have sufficient proof in the number of troops which Hulaki led into I-rin-
Zamin, drawn from a portion of these contingents, some of which subsequently
increased very much ; and we are told that one of Chaghatde’s Hazarahs, in a
short period of time, had increased to the number of 100,000.

I have been particular in mentioning these Hazarahs because, to judge from
one of the questions propounded at the Oriental Congress of 1876, great
doubt appears to have arisen in the minds of some persons on the subject, and
some have even asserted that the real Mughal element in the Chingiz Khin’s
armies was very small, and that Mughal is ‘“‘nothing more than a dynastic
name adopted by Ghengis to denote the empire which he founded,”
but, from what I have here given, those who know Turks from Tattars, and

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1095

Altiin Khan of Tamghaj. It is advisable that we should
make peace with him, and enter into alliance with him,
and that, in concert, we should proceed into the country of
Khita, and overthrow the Altiin Khan.” His opinion and
that of his Maliks agreeing, this was determined upon, and
peace was made by the Tingri Khan with the Chingiz Khan,
and a firm treaty was entered into between them.

When the Tingri Khan’s heart became tranquil on this
union, he came to the Chingiz Khan, and united with him ;
and the forces of the Tingri Khan combined with the
Mughal army, and they turned their faces towards the
countries of 11121 Khita. There was a river the name
of which is Kara-Mir [Mir-an ?],* and they crossed it with
the intention of devastating the country of Khita. A number
of Ni-ins and [other] Mughals represented to the Chingiz
Khan, saying: “Our army is moving towards Khita: if
we should sustain a defeat, the troops of the Tingri Khan
are likewise our enemies. His territory will be in our rear,
and not one of us will reach our own country in safety. It
is advisable, since the Tingri Khan is among us, that we
should slay him, and set our minds at ease respecting him,
so that there will not be an enemy behind us, and, with our
hearts at rest, we can turn our faces towards the Khita
country.” The Chingiz Khan resolved to act upon this

Mughals, and who understand the difference between Badz-ikis, and Udz-
ukis, Kaiaits and Nagiiz, Dural-gins and Nairiins, will perceive how greatly
the Mughal element predominated, and how fallacious such a statement is.

To sum up :—

The Khas Ming or Hazarah_ ¢ 1,000

The Ming or Hazarah of the Nu-yan एप्प), also
called the Kol १ ६ : . ` 8,000
The Right, or Buranghar . ; : ॐ * 30,000
The Left, or Juwanghar . ६ : = 62,000
The Mings or Hazarahs of the sons. 16,000

The Mings or Hazarahs of the brothers, nephews,
and mother . : j 12,000
129,000

In the ^" Afongols Proper,” on the authority apparently of M. Erdmann, the
101,000 men, including all the Hazadrahs here given, with the exception of the
contingents of Tili’s brothers, mother, and kinsmen, 28,000 in all, which
appertained to Tili, after his father’s death—have been mistaken for, and
added as, a separate force, and styled the ‘‘ Centre under Tului,” thus swelling
the 129,000 to 230,000, which is not correct. The 8000 Arlats, too, have
been left out.

1096 THE TABAKAT-i-NASIRI.

counsel, and he seized the Tingri Khan, and gave orders
to kill him. On the Tingri Khan becoming certain that
they would slay him, he said: “ Convey a single message
from me to the Chingiz Khan, and that message is this:
‘I have not shown any perfidy towards thee. I came to
thee under treaty. Thou art acting perfidiously towards
ine, and art going to act contrary to the covenant entered
into with me. Now give ear. When thou slayest me, if
from me issues blood white in colour like unto milk, know
that three days after me thou diest.’” When they conveyed
this message to the Chingiz Khan, he laughed, and said:
“ This man has become mad: blood like milk never issues
from the wound of a slain person, nor has any one ever
seen white blood. It behoveth the more speedily to put
him to death.”

When the executioner struck the Tingri Khan with his
sword, white blood like unto milk issued from the wound ;
and he perished. When the tidings of this astonishing
circumstance reached the Chingiz Khan, the accursed, he
quickly arose, and came to the spot; and, when he saw
that the occurrence was actually so, it struck his heart, and
his strength forsook him; and, on the third day, his heart
broke, and he went to hell.

He had made his last request, saying : “ It is incumbent
that ye slay the whole of the Tingri Khan’s people, both
male and female, small and great, young and old, and not
leave a single person alive” When the Chingiz Khan was
departing to hell he had devised the sovereignty to his son
Uktade ; and प्रप्र turned back, and massacred all the
people of the city and territory + of the Tingri Khan.

II. TUSHI, SON OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN

Tishi* was the eldest of the Chingiz Khin’s sons, and
was exceedingly energetic, intrepid, manly, and warlike;
and his greatness was to that degree that his father used
to stand in awe of him

In the year 615 H., when Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm
Shah, had gone forth to devastate the tribes of Kadr Khan

4 One of the best copies of the text omits the words ‘‘of the city and
territory.”
5 See note ५, page 1026.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1097

of Turkistan, who was the son of Safaktan-i- Yamak,* Tiishi
likewise, from the side of Tamghaj had advanced [with an
army] in that direction, and had been engaged in a conflict
with the army of the Khwarazm Shah for 2 night and a day,
as has been previously mentioned in the account of the
Khwarazm Shah. At this time, when Sultan Muhammad
fled from the banks of the Jihiin and the neighbourhood of
Balkh, the Chingiz Khan despatched his sons Tiishi and
Chaghatie, with a great army, towards Khwarazm.

He [०७1] proceeded thither with that army, and ap-
peared before the gate of [the capital city of] Khwarazm,
and the fighting commenced. For a period of four months’

© This name is clearly written in the different copies of the text with but
slight variation. Every one of the best copies have the ’Arabic &—-s as the first
letter, used, of course, to express or represent some Turkish letter. Thus
seven copies have Ge, ८८०५; une copy We ७८५ three others dy ५८= and
one e&., Ji

The difficulty is to decide who this person is, but, at the same time, it is
necessary to point out that this affair is in no way connected with Tik-Tugban,
the Makrit, although it is mentioned by our author, at page 267, as imme-
diately preceding the latter affair, which he refers to without mentioning any
name as here. The Jami’-ut-Taw4drikh also refers to this affair very briefly,
but mentions no name.

At the end of this work, in the lines addressed to the Ulugh Khan, he is
styled ‘* Khan of the Ilbari and Shah of the Yamak,”’ and these Ilbari are again
plainly stated to be Turks at page 800, and at page 796 it is mentioned that
that tribe had to remove from their accustomed place of abode, which is not
specified, but Khifchak is implied, when the Mughals became predominant over
Turkistan and the tribes of Khifchak. See also pages 599 and 791.

In an old geographical work Yamak is briefly referred to as the name of a
city or town and a territory or country famous for its beautiful females, and
that it is also said to be the name assigned to the sovereign of the I-ghiirs,
whoever he might be. But, as I have previously mentioned, in note at page
951, the Bashlighs, or Chiefs of the On-I-ghiirs, were in ancient times styled
Il-Itar, and those of the Tukiiz-I-ghiirs, Kol-Irkin, or, according to Abi-l-
Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, Il-Irkin, and, in after years, Yiddi-Kit.

7 The Khwarazmis made a much more gallant defence than our author has
given them credit for.

After the Chingiz Khan had effected the capture of Samrkand and had
become established in Mawara-un-Nahr, he, towards the close of 617 H.,
despatched his sons Jiiji, Chaghatae, and Uktie, to reduce the Khwarazm
territory at the head of a great army, which one author states amounted to
about 100,000 men, and they set out by way of Bukhara. The capital city of
Kbhwarazm was named Jurjaniah by "Arabs, but was called Urganj and
Urginj by the-Turks and the great men thereof. The ’Ajamis call it
Gurginj.

The author of the ‘‘ Afongols Proper” tells us twice (pp. 83 and 85) that

‘“* Urgendj” is ‘‘the modern Khiva,” but subsequently, in his additional

4 A

1098 THE FABAKAT-I-NASI RI.
the people of Khwarazm continued to resist the Mughals,

notes, that ‘fold Urgendj was the capital of Khuarezm,” in which he is
tolerably correct, but its site is not so very near ‘‘the modern capital—
Khiva,” being only ninety-two miles distant from it as the crow flies In
Col. J. C. Walker’s last map [1879], notwithstanding the various ‘‘ authorities”
mentioned on the margin of it, ‘‘Khiva” duly figures under the name of
Kharezm, while in the same map, as the name indicates, ‘‘ Kunia ”— an error
for Kuhnah, or old—‘‘ Urganj ” is the site. Such an error is to be lamented,
but I fear I shall have to refer to many others. Khwarazm is the name of the
territory, and the words ‘‘the city of Khwdrazm”’ merely refer to the aty
which is the capital of Khwarazm ; and this mode of terming a capital by the
name of the country was not uncommon. I do not agree with Pétis dela
Croix that the city was ever called Khwarazm, except in the sense mentioned.
What is erroneously styled AAiva in maps is KHiWAK— yee—of the people
of the country.

Among the number of great men present in the territory of Khwarazm at
this time, there was no one, in the absence of the members of the late Sultan's
family, whom they could better choose under the circumstances than the Amir,
Khumir-Tigin, the chief of the Kankulis[Pétis de la Croix’s "म Himartequen”—
the point of the kh having been omitted by the scribe, he read it as 4], who
was a kinsman of the late Sultan’s mother, the unfortunate Turkan Khatin,
and also held the office of Hajib-i-Dar, or War-Bika ; and they chose him to
direct the administration. In the exigency of affairs, they accorded him the
title of Sultan. There was besides, at the capital, the Pahlawan, Ali, the
Darghami.

After these measures had been adopted, one day, a small body of horse
appeared before one of the gates, and began to drive off the cattle. Not
knowing what calamity was lurking behind these horsemen, a number of
imprudent and short-sighted persons led out a large force, both horse and foot,
from the Khalki gate towards them, thinking to capture them. The Mughal
horsemen, for such they were, pretended flight, but took care occasionally to
give their pursuers hope of overtaking them, until they had drawn them to 8
place called the Bagh-i-Khurram—the Pleasant or Delightful Garden [turned
into a ^ Town called Baghe-Eram,” by Pétis de la Croix, who has made some
terrible errors in his account of these operations, and has interwoven his own
observations so much with the authors he quotes, that one is not to be distin-
guished from the other]—about a farsang from the city, where was the van of
the Mughal army in ambuscade. These rushed upon the Khwirazmis, and
assailed them on all sides. The latter fought from early morning till neon, but
the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir says, from noon to the setting of the sun, when, having
sustained great loss, they retreated precipitately towards the city. The
Mughals pursued ; and, in the confusion which ensued, succeeded in entering
along with the fugitives by one of the gates, and penetrated as far as the
Tanirah quarter. This, however, could only have been a suburb, as the
Mughals were stopped by Faridiin, the Ghiri, an old officer in the late
Sultan’s service, and his soldiers, and the Mughals thought fit to retire. The
Tarikh just named states, that the Khwarazmis lost 100,000 men on this
occasion, but this is impossible, and seems a mere confusion of events, and
refers to the upshot of the siege, or is altogether an exaggeration.

Next day, the Mughals again appeared before one of the gates, but, finding
Faridiin there posted with 500 men, did not make any attack during the whole

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1099
and to fight against those infidels. At last, they took the

of that day, and withdrew at night. Next day, when Jiji and his brothers
artived with the remainder of the great host, they made a perambulation of the
city, and a person was despatched to summon the defenders to submit to the
yoke of the Mughals, and open the gates. This was refused, upon which the
Mughals completely invested the city, and made preparations for besieging it.
As there was no stone in those parts, the Mughals had to use blocks of wood
for their catapults, cut from the timber of the mulberry-trees ; but I do not see
how blocks of that, even though ‘‘ hardened by being soaked in water,” as a
European writer states, could have had much effect upon walls of burnt brick;
but some say wood blocks were only used towards the close of the siege when
the stones had all been expended. The Mughals, as was usual with them,
made the men of the conquered cities do the hard work in sieges, and so they
obtained assistance from Jund and other conquered places, in the shape of men,
tools, and materials, including loads of stone which were brought in carts.
When all had been prepared, and the missiles and battering apparatus were
ready, they opened the siege, and carried on their operations with vigour, but
the defenders were as active and determined in the defence.

After a considerable time, the Mughals sent a force of 3000 men to divert
the stream or branch of the river Jibiin, which flowed past the city, and
supplied the people with water, and there effect an entrance [the aqueduct
apparently mentioned at page 474, which proved an effectual barrier to the
Ghiris] ; but the garrison made a sally to prevent it, and slew every one of the
detachment. Here again P. de la C. has fallen into error, and makes the
Mughals dig a canal to drain the ditch! Great part of the city was reduced to
ashes by the discharges of flasks of naphtha and other inflammable ingredients ;
buat, now, quarrels, which had been going on for some time between Jiji and
Chaghatae, became so serious—Fasih-i says severe fighting ensued as the
upshot of these quarrels, and that a great number of Mughals were killed—that
the matter was brought to the hearing of their father, then engaged in the siege
of Tal-kan. He was not at Samrkand, as P. de la C. states: he had, in the
meantime, left it, and had taken Tirmid also previous to this. Five months
had already passed in the siege of the Khwarazmi capital, and great loss had
been sustained, and the Chingiz Khan, in his rage, directed Uktde, the
younger brother of the two there present, to take the command, and that all
should pay him implicit obedience. He accordingly carried on the siege with
fresh vigour ; hut it took another two months before the Mughals succeeded,
by filling up the ditch with brushwood and rubbish—they may have drained
the ditch to do this—in effecting a lodgment, and planting their standards on
the walls. Even then the people fought hand to hand with them, from street
to street, and door to door, for several days, while the Mughals discharged
flasks of naphtha among them. Vast numbers were slain on both sides,
including the brave Khumar-Tigin ; indeed, one author says ‘‘ the city became
a sea of blood ;”’ and the siege altogether is said to have cost the Mughals
nearly 100,000 men, including the unfortunate Musalman people compelled
to work for their own people’s destruction.

The loss sustained by the defenders is computed at about the same amount,
but round numbers are often doubtful ; still it must have been very great.
The whole of the remaining people were driven out into the plain without the
city, and after 100,000 artisans, mechanics, and tradespeople, had been selected,
to be carried off with them and transported into Mughalistan, or to assist in

4A 2

1100 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

city, and martyred the whole of the people, and destroyed
all the buildings with the exception of two places—one
the Kishk-i-Akhjak* [the Castle of Akhjak], the other,
the mausoleum of Sultan Muhammad-i-Takish.

Some have stated on this wise, that, when the Mughals
captured the city of Khwarazm, and brought the inhabi-
tants out of the city into the plain, he [Tashi] commanded
that the women should be separated from the men, and
such of the women as they cared for the Mughals retained.
The remainder were directed to form into two bodies, and
they caused the whole of them to be stripped naked, and
round about them Mughal Turks [Turkan-i-Mughal],’ with
drawn swords, were stationed. The two parties were then
commanded, thus: “The women of your city are good
pugilists, therefore, the order is that both sides should set
on each other with their fists.” Those unfortunate Musal-
man females they caused, thus ignominiously, to attack
each other with hands clenched; and, for the space of a
whole watch of the day, all those women continued to deal

the destruction of their own people, and the young women and children, and
young men, had been sent into slavery [they were transported into the
farther East, and several towns and villages were peopled by them and
their descendants}, the remainder were all butchered. [This reads like
the doings at Eski Saghra and Kasanlik in 1877 a.pD.] The number was
so great that it was computed that each Mughal soldier had some twenty-
four to put to death; but, before we compute the number at 2,400,000,
because the Mughals numbered 100,000 at the commencement of the siege,
we must allow for their loss during that operation, and also leave out the
Musalman auxiliaries, but we may safely assume that more than a million
perished. Alfi says the Mughals numbered 100,000 at this time, and that the
number said to have been butchered passes almost all belief.

It is said that the Chingiz Khan, before sending his hordes against the city,
despatched a message to the celebrated Khwarazmi saint, the Shaikh, Najm-
ud-Din, the Kabri, otherwise Al-Kiwaki—or of Kiwak, which Europeans have
turned into AAiva - advising him to leave the place, since the upshot might be
its plunder, and the slaughter of the people, but the Shaikh refused, saying:
‘‘ For eighty years have I dwelt here in its prosperity, and should not leave it
in the day of its misfortune. I will take my chance with others, await my fate,
whatever it may be, and not fly from the Almighty’s decree.” He perished
with the rest.

After the fall of the capital, the other towns and cities of Khwarazm
submitted.

® In one copy, Akhchak.

9 From the way in which our author here writes Turkan-i-Mughal, ५८.
Mughal Turks—Turks of the Mughal 7 #@4—he was evidently well informed
as to the accounts of their descent. See note at pages 874 and 875.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1

blows upon, and to receive the blows of, each उपः until, at
length, the Mughals fell upon them with their swords and
martyred the whole of them—the Almighty reward them!

When Tishi, and Chaghatae, the sons of the Chingiz
Khan, had finished their work at Khwarazm, they ' turned
their faces towards Khifchak ; and the forces and tribes of
Khifchak they continued to subdue one by one, and make
captive ; and they brought the whole of the tribes under
subjection. Tiishi, who was the eldest son of the Chingiz
Khan [as already stated], when he became acquainted with
the climate of the land of Khifchak, considered that, in the
whole universe, there could not be a more delightful land,
a pleasanter climate, softer water, meads more verdant, and
pasture-lands more extensive ; and repugnance towards his
father began to enter into his mind. He said to his con-
fidants: “The Chingiz Khan has become mad, as he
Massacres sO many people, and desolates so many coun-
tries! It thus seems meritorious on my part that, in
some hunting-ground, I should slay my father, enter into
an alliance with Sultan Muhammad, [Khwarazm Shah],
render this country flourishing, and give help and assist-
ance to the Musalmans.”? His brother, Chaghatae, gained
intimation of this idea [of his brother's], and made known
this perfidious notion and design to his father. When the
Chingiz Khan became aware of it, he despatched his own
confidential agents, so that they administered poison to
Tiishi, and killed him.®

1 This is an error. The brothers never agreed together, as I shall presently
show, and they had quarrelled at Khwarazm only recently. After the capture
of Urgang, Juji, with the «/zs (armed men of the tribe) of the Yiddi-Kit of the
I-ghirs, returned towards Kara-Kuram, but subsequently [णुं retired into the
Dasht-i-Kibchak ; and Chaghatie and Uktae proceeded, by way of Hazar-asp,
to rejoin their father’s camp before Tal-kan. They captured Hazar-asp in the
course of two days, and massacred its inhabitants, the number of whom,
according to some writers, was so great that they did not deem it advisable
even to record it. These events happened in 618 H.
` Although our author wrote soon after these events took place, and was
_ living at the time they happened, he was seemingly unaware that Uktae was
present at Urganj, and that he, after the quarrels between the brothers, was
put in command over them, a fact which is beyond a doubt. Such being the
case, and from what he himself says was the cause of his father’s enmity
towards him, it is probable that Jiji had no hand in these brutal cruelties.

2 The Sultan had died some time previous to this, in 617 H.

3 [णौ was but thirty years old when he died. He left behind him fifteen

1102 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Tiishi likewise had fourteen sons, the eldest of whom
was named Bati, the second Chaghatae, the third Shaiban,

sons, but some say, fourteen. The eldest was Urdah, whose mother was
Sirtak Khatiin, daughter of the sovereign of the Kungkur-at tribes, and that
son was wont to lead the left of his army, while Batii, his second son, led the
right. Another was named Barkah, our author's Barka, who turned Musalman,
being the first of that family who did so. The remaining sons, except Tighae-
Timir, who also turned Musalman, are not so well known to history and need
scarcely be mentioned here. Jiji’s death took place in Rabi’-ul-A wwal, 624 H-,
not in 626 H., 25 P. dela €. says, for he died before his father. Batii succeeded
to his father’s dominions, whose reign will be found farther on. The Khans of
Krim [the Krimia] were lineally descended from Jiiji Khan, whose descendants
reigned longer as independent sovereigns than any others of the race.

Our author has exaggerated a little here, probably, but there is evidently
some truth in what he says. There is plenty of evidence to prove that his
father stood in some awe of Jaji, for, undoubtedly, he was a great and high-
minded prince ; and this, together with the occurrences attending his birth,
appear to have alienated the heart of the Chingiz Khan from him. When
the Makrit tribe plundered the चक्कं of Tamur-chi, they carried off Birtah
Kiichin, his wife, who is said to have been pregnant at the time, and
brought her to the Awang Khan, their chief. P. de la C., although he
afterwards says Jiiji was the eldest son, says this lady was then “big
with her second child,” and makes out ‘‘Aunghcan” to be “er father”!
He treated her with great reverence and respect, and, after some time, sent
her back to her husband, and, on the way, she gave birth to a son. No prepa-
rations having been made for the occasion, there was nothing available to
swaddle the babe with: therefore the messenger of Tamur-chi, who had been
sent to demand her release, mixed some flour and water together, and swaddled
the boy in the dough, and thus managed to convey him safely, with his mother,
to the urdu of Tamur-chi. The boy being unexpected—it would seem indeed
that Tamur-chi was unaware of his wife’s pregnancy, hence the doubts respects
ing the paternity of the child—was named Jiji, or Tiishi, which, in the dialect
of the Mughals, signifies the unexpected guest. It is not correct, as related in
“The Afongols Proper,” that the mother gave birth to Jiji ‘‘after her retum
from captivity :”’? he was born on the road.

His brothers, particularly Chaghatae and Uktae, used constantly to taunt
पीं respecting his birth, and they seem to have been jealous of him; but his
father had great faith in his ability and valour, and entrusted him, previous to
the invasion of Islim, with the command of an army, which army was over-
taken by Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm 31121), and brought to action, as
related at page 269, and his father had since conferred upon him the government
of the whole of the ५८८ or tribes and territories within the limits of Ardish
and the Altae mountains. Subsequently, the Chingiz Khan added thereto the
territories of Khwarazm, the Dasht-i-Kibehak or Khifchak, and such con-
quests as Jiiji might effect over the countries of Khurz, Bulghar, Alan, As,
and Ris.

After the capture of the capital city of Khwarazm, that is to say, Urganh
प separated from his brothers, and withdrew into [towards?] the Daght--
Kibchak ; and, when Jabah [Yamah] and Swidae [Sahiidah] returned from
their three years’ expedition, and reached the Dasht-i-Kib¢hak, they had to
obtain aid from him, as already narrated, before they could proceed farther oD

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1103

and the fourth Barka; and trustworthy persons have re-
lated on this wise, that the birth of this Barka took place
at the time of the conquests in the territories of Islam.
When his mother gave him birth, Tashi, his father, com-

their way. When the Chingiz Khan retired from Nangrahar, and set out on
his return into Mughalistan, and reached Kulan Yazi, Jiji presented himself,
as already mentioned in the account of his father ; but another writer, Hafiz
Abri, states, and his statement is, without doubt, correct, that, after the disagree-
ment with his brothers before Urganj, subsequent to its capture, Chaghatde and
Uktae set out with their troops to rejoin their father, and reached his camp at
Tal-kan, but Jiji set out towards Ardish, where were his wives and families,
and joined his own wrdits. As his father, previous to this, had commanded
him to invade the countries to the north and west, such as the territories of
Bular (sic. ,3y:], of the Bagh-ghird, the Ris, and the Jarkas [the Cheremis ?], the
Dashbt-i-Kibchak, and other parts in that direction, and to hold possession of
them, when Jiiji set out toward Ardish, his father, at first, imagined that he
did not intend to obey his commands, respecting that expedition, and that he
had, consequently, returned to his home and given himself up to pleasure and
jollity instead of carrying out his instructions. The Chingiz Khan was, in
consequence, exceedingly incensed, and commanded that it would be neces-
sary to put him to death without looking upon his face again. The real cause
however was that पुर, at the period in question, had become prostrated by
disease, and, on that account, when the Chingiz Khan returned from the terri-
tory of the Tajziks, and took up his residence in his own urdé, Jiiji was unable
to present himself in his father’s presence, but he despatched several loads of
game, and made known his illness. Subsequently, he was again summoned to
appear, but be made apologies, and stated his inability to attend on account of
sickness.

Shortly after that, a person having set out from Jiji’s दक to proceed to
the presence of the Chingiz Khan, coming along the road, noticed that [पं
had gone forth, and was proceeding from yi#rat to yiirat. By the way, Jijf
had to pass a place where he had been wont to follow the chase, and, being
incapable himself, through weakness, he despatched his Amirs to hunt. This
person, who was on his way to the camp of his father, noticed, from a distance,
a considerable gathering assembled engaged in hunting, and made sure to him-
self that it was Jiji; and, when he reached the presence of the Chingiz
Khan, and the latter inquired of him respecting Jiji’s illness, he replied :
“ As to his illness I know naught, but, at the time of coming hither, near the
skirts of a certain mountain range, he was engaged in hunting.” At these
words the wrath of the Chingiz Khan was roused.to such degree as cannot be
narrated, and, in his mind, he felt certain that Jiji had become disloyal, and
paid no regard to his father’s words, and so he said: ‘‘Jiiji has gone mad, and,

_in consequence, is acting the part of a fool.. It is necessary to send troops
against him $ and it is advisable to despatch Chaghadae and Ukdae in advance,
and follow in person myself.” At this crisis, news arrived that Jiji was dead;
and the Chingiz Khan was greatly grieved at his loss. What that person had
stated respecting Jiji hunting was entirely false and fictitious, and the Khan
gave orders to put him to death; but he had got some inkling of what he
might expect, when he heard of the decease of Jiji, and made his escape from
the 47dz, and the wrath of Jiji’s father,

1104 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

manded, saying: “Give ye this boy to a nurse of the
15212115, in order that his navel string may be severed
by 2 Musalmin, that he may imbibe Musalman milk, and
turn out a Musalman; for I intend that this son of mine
shall be brought up in the Musalm4n faith.” If this state-
ment is veracious, the Almighty mitigate his torment [in
hell]! Undoubtedly, through the blessing attending this
intention, when Barka grew up, he became a scion of
Islam. Up to this period of time, the date of the comple-
tion of this History, the year 658 H., of the sons of Tishi,
that one Musalman sovereign is still left.

May Almighty God continue the Sultan of Islam,
NASIR-UD-DIN WA UD-DUNYA, MAHMOD SHAH, upon
the throne of sovereignty to the day of resurrection !

Ill. UKTAE, SON OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN.

When the Chingiz Khan died, he devised the sovereignty
to Uktae,* although Chaghatde was older than he; but
(12112126 was a butcher and a tyrant.

Uktade, when he ascended the throne, and carried out
the last command of his father, the Chingiz Khan, and
massacred all the people of Tingit, both females and males,
returned from thence towards Turkistan’ Having brought

4 The name of this sovereign is also written Oktae, and Okdie, ¢ and d
being interchangeable, signifying ‘‘ascent,” ‘‘height,” ‘‘loftiness,” ‘‘sublimity,”
and the like, but Ogotai is absurd, and could only have occurred to a person
who had never been in the East, and who was unacquainted with the
pronunciation of the name as written in the original, and the value of the
letters of the alphabet.

$ This is incorrect. < did not ascend the throne until fwe years and
more after the decease of his father. I have already given an account of the
events which happened after the death of the Chingiz Khan in a previous
note.

I must notice the events of Oktae’s reign in order to correct some erroneous
accounts respecting him, but I must do so very briefly, because the events of
his father’s life, which were necessary to rectify incorrect accounts respect-
ing him, have occupied much space. I must mention that ^ Tului,” youngest
son of the Chingiz Khan, did not ‘‘act as regent” at all: it would have
been totally contrary to the custom of the Mughals, and the Chingiz Khan
had himself named one, as already related. There are other equally erroneous
statements respecting Uktae which may be seen from the following.

Uktae is the first of the sovereigns who reigned in the Ulugh Yarat, also

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1105

that territory under his authority, he nominated armies
to march into various parts of Khuradsan and ’Irak, and

styled the Asal or Original or Chief Yirat, which words refer to Kaliir-in and
Kara-Kuram, and which last is also celebrated as the Urdiie- Baligh.

After having performed the funeral ceremonies over their father and sove-
reign, the sons, Nii-yins, and Amirs, each retired to his respective y#ra¢; and,
for a period of two years, the mother of Ukdae and his brothers, Birtah
Kiuchin, administered the affairs: she may be styled “ Regent.”

After two years, and the period of mourning had expired, this Khftiin,
Birtah Kichin, lest any untoward event might happen in the empire, sum-
moned the sons of the deceased, and the great Amirs, to assemble at the
Ulugh श पाथं, which the Chinese style Ho-lin, and hold a kiriltae or diet ;
and, in the beginning of the spring of 626 H., they arrived. From I-mil and
Ki-Tak came Uktae and his sons; from the Dasht-i-Kibehak came Bati,
Barkah, Shaiban, Tingkit, and two other sons of Jiji Khan; from the
eastern parts of the empire [i. €, east of Kalir-an] came the Ni-yins, 0-Tigin
or Aw-Tigin—also written Onji and Unchi-Tigin—and Bilkiti, the brothers
of the Chingiz Khan; Chaghatae Khan came from Bish-Baligh, and the
Ni-yin, Karachiar, from his yérat, besides numbers of other personages from
all parts of the empire.

The Ulugh Ni-yin, Tili Khan, and other brothers younger than he, who were
already present at the Ulugh Yirat, and his Amirs, also attended ; and, after
all the Princes, Nii-yins, and Amirs, had assembled, a mighty feast was given,
during which the matter which brought them together there was discussed.
After this, the testament of the Chingiz Khan, nominating Oktae as his suc-
cessor, and the covenant entered into between the sons, confirming that
nomination, were read out before all, in the presence of the troops then in the
Urdii, in order that they also should confirm it. All, with one accord, now
addressed Uktae, saying : ‘‘In accordance with the will of the Chingiz Khan it
behoveth thee to take thy seat on the throne of sovereignty ;”’ but Uktie made
excuses, saying: ‘‘ There are others older than I am, my uncles and my
brother Chaghatae : let one of them be raised to the throne ; moreover, my
younger brother Tif is more worthy than I am, and, according to the customs
and usages of the Mughals, the yossngest son of the greatest of the Khatiins, and
who is in possession of the Yiirat and place of abode, should succeed the father.”

For forty days was this feasting continued, during which discussion went on,
and daily did Uktae continue to make excuses ; but, on the forty-first day, all
the Princes and Nii-yins came before him and said: ‘‘ This sovereignty was
assigned to thee from among the rest of the brothers and sons of the Chingiz
Khan : how then is it possible to contravene it?” Then the whole of the
assembly, according to ancient [Turkish] custom, having taken goblets,
removed their caps, unloosed their girdles, and thrown them over their
shoulders, Chaghatae, as the elder brother, seized the right hand of Uktae,
and Tali his left, while his uncle, U-Tigin, seized him round the waist,
and, with the approval of the Astrologers and Diviners, seated him on the
throne, and hailed him by the title of Ka’an—y\¥

Ka’an, I would observe, cannot be ‘‘a contraction” for Khakan—,b—
because the metre of both words is precisely the same, and there is no kh in
the former ; further, that it was not ‘‘borne by all Ogotai’s successors,” for
Kyiik did not bear it, neither was it ‘‘ new,” for Bi-zanjar, the ninth ancestor
of the Chingiz Khan, bore that title. One writer indeed says that, ५५०८ *'

1106 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

towards Ghiir and Ghaznin, and began to administer the
affairs of the country according to justice and equity, to
keep his forces under subordination, and to cherish his
subjects.

By nature, Uktae was exceedingly beneficent and of
excellent disposition, and a great friend to the Musalmans.
During his reign the Muhammadans in his dominions
were tranquil and prosperous in condition, and treated
with respect. He used to strive greatly to show honour
to the Musalman people, and to render them flourishing
and contented. In his reign, #asjids were founded in all
the cities of Tingit, Tamghaj, Tibbat, and the countries
of Chin; and all the forts and strongholds of the region

Mughils do not use much ceremony respecting titles, they style a Padghah,
Ka’an or Khan indiscriminately.”

After Ukdae had been placed on the throne, gold and gems were poured
over him; and, (पां having held the bowl to him, the Princes, Nii-yins
Amirs, and all who were both within and without the assembly, and all
keeping exact time, bowed the knee to him nine times, the lucky number of
the Mughals. No author with whom I am acquainted refers, in the most
remote manner, to ^ frostrating themselves nine times,’’ whatever “ ancient
Chinese ccremonial might have been,” and he was not a Chinese.

Surgeon-Major Bellew, in the ^ Description of Kdshghar” (REPORT,
page 61), says with reference to this number nine: “ Similarly the presents
given by the father to the bride must be in the same number or its multiple of
each kind, as nine frocks, nine mantles, nine carpets, &c., and the presents
made by friends too must be in the same number, as nine pieces of silk, nine
veils, nine caps, &c. The origin of the selection of this particular number,
called fociiz, is not known, but the custom is observed by all the Turk and
Tartar tribes of Central Asia.” He might have said, more correctly, °" Mughal.”
Tukiz stands for se in the Turkish language, and I may add that the origin
of the custom ॐ known, and it will be found by referring to the note at page 875,
which see, and is referred to in several other places.

A volume almost might be written on the subject of presenting the cup or
bowl. It was not peculiar to the Mughals, but was usual among all the descend-
ants of Turk. It would be interesting to compare their customs in this respect
with those of the Scandinavians. The presentation of the cup was the
highest mark of consideration and homage, and all present on such occasions
bent the knee. It was likewise the highest honour a sovereign could show
towards a vassal or subject. Ambassadors whom it was intended greatly to
honour were presented with the cup, and it was necessary on the occasion of
making a treaty, or confirming an oath. Kumiz or fermented mare’s milk was
generally used, but they also made drinks from millet, honey, and rice. Wine
was used on special occasions, and by the Khans.

This ceremony took place in the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 626 प्त. [Feby.
1228 A.D.—which is but eighteen months from Ramazan, 624 H., but, as pre
viously stated, some contend that the Chingiz Khan died in Ramagan, 623 ४.)
just two years and six months after the death of his father.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1107

of the east he gave in charge to a number of Musalman
Amirs. Such Amirs as they (the Mughals] had removed
from the countries of I-ran and Tiran- he located in the
cities of Upper Turkistan, and in the land of Chin and
Tamghaj, and in Tingit, and commanded that they [the
Mughals] should address Musalmans by the terms “friend,”
and “ brother.” He also directed the Mughals that they
should give their daughters [in marriage] to Musalmans,
and that if they [the Musalmans] should evince a desire
to demand their children [in marriage for their sons] they
should not deny them.

Throughout the whole of the eastern countries [under
the sway of the Mughals], the Friday’s religious services
[2 the Muhammadans] were established ; and Musalmans
took up their abode in those parts, and they founded
towns and cities of their own, and built places according
to the manner of their own [native] cities.°

Of the friendliness of Uktae towards Musalmans the
author has heard an anecdote which is here related.’

ANECDOTE.

Trustworthy persons have related that Chaghatiae used
to regard Musalmans with hostility, and his mind con-
stantly contemplated the shedding of Musalman blood,
and not leaving one of that faith alive. Now the Chingiz
Khan had instituted certain ordinances, the punishment
for the infringement of some of which laws used to be
death. For example: adultery and crimes of lust in
general, theft, lying, and embezzlement, and the act of
seizing a morsel from anothers mouth, were punishable
with death ; and whosoever should enter a piece of water,
whether large or small, they were to kill him also, and
likewise any one who should wash his face at the edge of
any water, so that the water from the washed face of such
person should enter that water.* The punishment of any

¢ The Jesuits in their accounts of the Chinese empire refer to some of these
places. See also note at page 1100, first para.

7 All writers agree respecting his showing a preference towards the Muham-
madan religion. He excelled his brothers and contemporaries in impartiality,
grace, and bounty.

$ See note 2, page 1109, for the reasons of this prohibition,

1108 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

one who might be guilty of an offence less than one of all
these was to be three or five, or ten, or more, stripes with
a rod, but with the stipulation that, while punishment
was being administered, the offender should be entirely
stripped, and that the rod should be wielded with force
and severity. To these ordinances ° they have applied the
name of Yasah, in the Mughali language, that is to say,
command, mandate, decree.

One day, both the brothers—Uktae and Chaghatae—
were proceeding along a track into the open country.
Uktae was in advance, and Chaghatae behind him, at the
distance of a quarter of a farsang [league]. Suddenly,
Uktae reached the head of a reservoir of water, and per-
ceived therein a Musalman who was washing his head
and body. When the eyes of Uktae fell upon that Musal-
man, he turned his face towards his personal attendants,
and said: “ Alas! this unfortunate Musalman will be forth-
with put to death by the hand of my brother Chaghatae:
what is advisable?” After that he inquired: “ Hath any
person among you an ingot of gold or of silver' ready at
hand?” One of his attendants bowed and said: “I have
an ingot of silver with me.” Uktae said: “Give it to that
Musalman, and tell him to throw it into the reservoir;
and that, when my brother (02102126 reaches this spot
and sees him, and questions him, he must say: ‘ An ingot
of silver of mine hath fallen into the water, and I have
entered the reservoir in order to search for it,’ so that he
may escape being put to death.” Uktae’s attendants gave
the ingot of silver to that Musalman, and he threw it into
the water ; and Uktae urged his horse onwards.

When Chaghatae reached the spot, he perceived that
Musalman in the water, and commanded his attendants to

® And a great many more forming the Code of the Chingiz Khan entitled
Yasa, or Yasah.

1 In all these histories which I have gone through, strange to say, I have
never met with the slightest allusion to coined money in any shape with the
exception of the d@/:sh or ingot.

Thomas, in his ‘‘ Pathan Kings,” gives the description of a coin bearing the
name of ^" Chingiz Khan,” and the Khalifah un-Nasir’s title, and he considers
it genuine. It must therefore be a coin of one of the subjected Musalman rulers
of Ghir or Kayman, or parts adjacent, such as Hasan, the Karligh Turk, and
others mentioned in these pages, and not a Mughal coin. It bears no date.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1109

seize him. He demanded of him, saying: “ Since it is the
yasak of the Khan that no living being should go into the
water, why hast thou acted to the contrary ? we must kill
thee.” The Musalman represented: “An ingot of silver
of mine hath fallen into this reservoir, and I have got into
the water in order to seek for it.” Chaghatde directed
so that a number of Mughals entered the water, and made
search for the ingot, and having found it brought it; and
by the expedient and kindness of that just and beneficent
sovereign, Uktade, the Musalman escaped.* May the Al-
mighty lighten his punishment hereafter !

Through his efforts, numerous Musalmans escaped from
the hands of the accursed tyrant, Chaghatée. A number
of trustworthy persons have related after this manner, that,
judging from the ancient chronic'es of bygone times, and
of past ages, that, in the states of Turkistan, and the countries
of Chin, Tingit, and Tamghaj, no sovereign more bene-
ficent nor of better disposition than Uktde ever placed
foot in stirrup. When he became firmly established in
the dominions of his father, and his brothers and the Ni-
yins and Khans of Turkistan, submitted to his authority,
he girded up his loins, and organized and equipped his
armies, and despatched them towards different countries.
The Mughal Ni-yin, Jurmaghiin, was despatched? into
Irak in the year 626 H., and the Ni-yin, Mangitah was
sent towards Ghaznin ; and, in the before-mentioned year,
Uktae made over to his charge Tukhiaristan, Kunduz, and
Tal-kan ;* and the Maliks of Khurasan, Ghir, Kirman,

? Our author does not appear to have known the reason why, in the ideas of
the Tattars and Mughals, bathing in such a way required to be strictly pro-
hibited. The prohibition was that ‘‘during the seasons of spring and summer
no one should immerse himself in running water [one writer says, ‘‘in the day-
time’’], nor wash his hands in streams, nor wash his garments, and afterwards
spread them in the open country to dry ; and that water should not be taken
from running streams in vessels of gold or of silver, because, in the belief of
these people, such acts are the cause of increase of thunder and lightniny,
which, in their localities, from the beginning of spring to the end of summer,
while rain used continually to fall, prevailed to such a degree, that the light-
ning was fearful, and the roaring of the thunder tremendous.”

3 Nominated to proceed, probably, but not despatched until the following
year in which he crossed the Jibiin or Amitiah. He was a Mangkit, or, as it
is also written, Manghut Mughal.

+ One or two modern copies of the text have Tae-kan here, but all the rest

1110 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIE

and Fars, and those, who still continued in [possession of]
different forts and strongholds, all proceeded to Kara-
Kuram,* to the presence of Uktae, and requested that
Shahnahs [Intendants] might be sent to them; and ता
ferent parts of Khurasan began to thrive again.‘

Another anecdote of Uktae’s countenance of Musalmans
is apposite, and is [here] inserted.

ANECDOTE.

Trustworthy persons have related that Chaghatiae, the
accursed, was, at all times, striving to oppress the Muham-
madans, and devising means to bring trouble and calamity
upon the people of Islam, and bringing ruin upon those
that remained of them and causing their extirpation, so
that no sign or trace of them might anywhere be found.
In the diffusion of that iniquity he was wont to machinate
and to labour, and was in the habit of instigating a party
of Mughals—Ni-yins and Bahadurs—in such a manner
that they used to bring to Uktae’s notice words and acts
on the part of Musalmans such as used to be the source
of trouble and injury to the people of Islam, and the
cause of their ruin and destruction, until, on one occasion,
Chaghatae incited one of the priests of the idol-wor-
shippers, which sect, in the Turki language, they style
Tinian’ [Tiinis], on such wise, that he came before Uktae

are as above. As Tae-kan is in Tukhiristan, which is first mentioned, as well
as Kunduz, Tal-kan of Khurasan is undoubtedly referred to.

ॐ Which is always mentioned as the asal or original y#rat of the Chingiz
Khan, and known also as the Urdite-Baligh. It was not a city, but an
encampment.

५ Uktae is said, by the Pro-Mughal Historians, to have poured balm into
the wounds inflicted by his father. There was certainly much balm wanted,
but many of the wounds have never been healed to this day, witness numbers
of the once most flourishing cities of Asia, which still lie in ruins. Uktie
bears the character of a just ruler, and his liberality was excessive. When the
records of his gifts and grants were made up, it was found that he had
expended not less than 100,000 fomdns of gold ८५८१4, some say 60,000 ; but
the statements respecting the value of each balish varies. Some compute a
balish of gold at 500 méskals, others at 60 dirhams and 2 ddngs; some,
8 dinars and 2 dangs, and others 8 dirhams and 2 dangs.

7 In some copies of the text it is Ti-indn—ylgi—as in RuBRUQUIS, who
calls them °" Tuinians,” and says they were idolaters. This word has sorely
puzzled some of the copyists of the different A/SS. of the text collated ; but, in
the Printed ‘‘Official” Text, it is invariably mistaken for the plural form त

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. ग्रा

and stated, saying: “^ [ have seen the Chingiz Khan in a
dream, and he has given me a command to convey unto
thee, and thou, who art Uktde, his son, and installed by
him, in his place, shouldst neither neglect, in any way, to
carry out that command, nor deviate from, or fail to com-
ply with, that yasak [ordinance] ; and let it not be that
thou receive not the Chingiz Khan’s approbation. The
mandate is this that the Chingiz Khan has commanded,
saying : ‘The Musalmans have grown exceedingly nume-
rous, and, in the end, the downfall of the Mughal empire
will be brought about by the Musalm§ans, therefore it is
necessary that the whole of them that are in our whole
dominions, to wit, from the countries of Chin, Tam-
ghaj, Tingit, and Turkistan, as far as the land of I-ran
and ’Ajam, you should put to death, and not leave name
nor vestige of them to remain.’ I have now delivered unto
thee the command of the Chingiz Khan, thy father, and
have removed that obligation from my neck. It behoveth
thee to comply with it, and show obedience thereto, and not
grant respite of life to the Musalman peoples, so that the
empire may not sustain deterioration.”

When he [the priest] conveyed this command to Uktiae,
who was a just, wise, prudent, and sagacious monarch, and
friendly towards the Musalman people, he, of his princely
penetration, perceived that this statement was false and
a lie, that, from the utterance thereof, the odour of fabrica-
tion pervaded the smelling sense of discrimination, and
that it appeared to have been hatched by his brother,
Chaghatae—the Almighty’s curse upon him! Uktiae pre-
sently commanded that, for the Tin idol-worshipper, a
grand place should be got ready, with due preparation and
arrangement for his accommodation, and provided with all
things requisite and befitting for him, and said to him:
“This command isa very serious and awful one, and it

the Turkish title, Ni-in, Nii-yin, or Nii-yan, which so often occurs, namely,
Ni-inin— ७८49-0 Nii-yinan— yk’, The Editors of the Calcutta Text
probably imagined that 3 was an error fori The same errors occur in the
printed text in the account of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, the Khalj ruler of
Lakhanawati. See note 3, page 567.

Farther on, our author styles them ‘‘the idol-worshippers of Tingut and
Tamgbaj.” The singular form of the word above referred to is Tint or

Tiini.

1112 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

will be necessary to shed the blood of a vast number of
people. There is not a person among the Maliks, Ni-yins,’
Bahadurs, and Juzbis, that has not a great number of
Musalman captives, and they [the Maliks, etc.] are dis-
persed in various parts of the territories of Chin, Tamghaj,
Turkistan, I-ran, and ’Ajam. It is absolutely necessary
that this command should be communicated to them, in
order that the whole of them may act according to its
precept ; and therefore it is now necessary for thee to wait
so that this mandate may be sent out into the whole of the
Mughal dominions, in order that the Ni-yins, Juzbis, and
Bahadurs, and other Maliks, may assemble, and this awful
command may be communicated to them, in such wise
that all of them may be required to comply with it.”
Uktde consequently issued directions so that they lodged
this Tiini idol-worshipper at the place which had been
fixed upon, in such a manner that he was treated with
honour and reverence, and not a tittle of the minutia of
due attention was left unobserved, because that accursed
Gabr*® had some name and reputation in the region of
Turkistan, and in Tamghaj and Chin.

As soon as the prescribed period expired, and the
grandees of the Mughal dominions assembled, Uktae com-
manded so that they convoked a great assembly, attended
with princely ceremony, such as was the established cus-
tom of that people [the Mughals], and all with befitting
formality, and observance of the prescribed duties. After
this, Uktae ascended the throne; and the whole of the
grandees of the empire were present, with loins girded,

8 This word is spelt in three different ways, as mentioned in the preceding
note. It is applied by the Karghiz nomads, and other tribes erroneously
supposed to be Karghiz, to their chiefs or the heads of tribes, in the present
day.

As these Maliks are immediately after styled ‘the Maliks of Turkistan,’ it
would seem to infer that they held Musalmans of ’Ajam in bondage, while
they, as in the case of Arsalan Khan of Kaialik, mentioned at page 1023, were
Musalman Turks.

9 I have previously mentioned thatthis term is not solely applied to Parsis
or Fire-Worshippers, any more than farsd is to Christians. Our author uses
the last word with respect to Christians in several places. It does not follow,
therefore, that the person above mentioned was a Fire-Worshipper, nor need
I write an essay on fire-worship in Mughalistaa for the occasion. Our author
here simply means to say that he was an infidel, or unbeliever.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1113

before the throne; and those among them who were per-
mitted to sit came down on the knees of homage. He
then commanded that that Tiini should be conducted
into his place of audience with all honour and reverence.
When he arrived, and sat down ' before the throne, Uktade
said : ^ Now is the time that thou shouldst pronounce the
command of the Chingiz Khan, and declare what that
command is, in order that all may obey it.” That Tini
stood up, and pronounced the command of the Chingiz
Khan in the manner he pretended he had received it, and
delivered it. All present bowed their heads to the ground,
and, with one accord, said: “We have heard the com-
mand, and we bend our necks thereto. What is the will
of Uktde, the sovereign of the time, with respect to the
mode in which it is necessary to obey this command, and
how it behoveth to proceed, in order that we may all of
us act accordingly?” Uktade replied: “Every claim re-
quires proof and demonstration, in order that truth from
falsehood, and right from wrong, may be distinguished ;
and this statement requires the testimony of witnesses of
the circumstances, because, if it turns out correct that it is
the command of the Chingiz Khan, it will be necessary
for all to obey that command; and, if it is false and a
fabrication, or is the invention of this person, or invented
at the instigation of an insidious person, the blood of people,
subjects, and servants, must not be shed for a lie,”

On Uktae’s concluding this speech, those present bowed
their heads to the ground [saying]: “This which the
Khan speaks, the whole of the sages of the world, the dis-
criminating and the exalted in intellect, cannot add to,
for it is a princely speech and a noble saying, which ex-
cellency of understanding and sovereignty indeed demands;
and no created being is able to place the hand of objection
to the forehead of this command, but it behoveth that
Uktae should direct and point out in what manner the
truth or falsehood, veracity or falsity thereof, may be de-
Monstrated and made known.” Uktde turned his face
towards that Tiini idol-worshipper, saying: “ Dost thou
understand the Mughali language, or the Turki language,

1 This shows that he was of high rank and position.

4 B

1114 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

or dost thou know both those tongues ?”? The Tini
idol-worshipper replied: “I understand the Turki lan-
guage, and I do not understand the Mughali tongue.”
Uktae turned his face towards the hereditary Mughal
grandees, whose lineage and descent were from pure
Mughals, and said: “ Unto ye it is certain and clear, that
the Chingiz Khan used not to understand any language
whatever save the Mughali language.” They all bent
their heads to the ground, and, with one accord, replied:
“ Indeed, such is the case, that the Chingiz Khan under-
stood no other language than the Mughali.” Uktae,
turning his face towards that (तापं, asked: “In what
language did the Chingiz Khan deliver this command
unto thee: in the Mughali or the Turki language? If he
spoke in Mughali, seeing thou dost not understand it, in
what manner didst thou comprehend what he was saying;
and, if he spoke in Turki, since he used not to understand
Turki, how did he communicate the order? Give an an-
swer from which an odour of truth may come, in order
that action may be taken thereon.”

That impious, malevolent, cursed, Tiini remained silent
and confounded, on such wise that the breath did not
issue from that infernal one, and he became completely
shamed. All the Mughal grandees and the Maliks of
Turkistan bowed their heads to the ground, and with one
accord said: “This command [from the Chingiz Khin]}
is false, and is devoid of truth.” Uktde said to the Tint:
“For the sake of my own dignity, and that of my brother
Chaghatae, I do not inflict punishment upon thee. Return
to thy abode, and say unto Chaghatiae, and to his depen-
dents, that they must draw back their hands from afflict-
ing and oppressing Musalmans, as they are our brothers
and friends; in them the strength of our dominion 8
evident, and, with their assistance, many peoples have
been subdued by us.”* May Almighty God mitigate his
torments [in hell]!

2 Here is an indication that the dialects must have been, at this period,
very different from each other.

3 Some of the Historians of the Mughal sovereigns, who give this anecdote
in half a dozen lines, state that Uktae ordered this Tiini to be put to death,
but they do not say who or what he was, merely ‘‘a person.” A similar plot,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1115

Some persons, whose statements are worthy of reliance,
have so stated that such-like favours and reverence were a
proof of this, that Uktae, secretly, had become a Musal-
man ;* but God knows the truth,

ACCOUNT OF THE NOMINATION OF ARMIES FROM TURK.
ISTAN TO PROCEED INTO THE TERRITORY OF ’IRAK.

When Uktade despatched an army towards Khurdsan
and "Irak, he made the Ni-in Jurmaghiin® the com-

in which the then YViddi-Kit of the I-ghiirs was concerned, is mentioned
farther on.

* **The wish” here is evidently ‘‘ parent to the thought.”

* Considerable convulsions arose in the territories overrun and partially sub-
dued by the Mughals, after the death of the Chingiz Khan. I say partially,
for such was the fact, wherever troops were not stationed for the purpose of
holding possession. These convulsions extended, an one side, as far 25 Khif-
chak, Saksin, and Bulghar, and, on the other, as far as Khutan, Chin, and
Khita ; while the countries west of the Amiiah had been devastated and ruined,
but not subdued.

It appears that soon after the decease of the Chingiz Khan, on the borders
of Tingkit, Tilt Khan, who was in possession of the Ulugh or Great Vurat
of his father, in accord with, and at the advice of, the great nobles present
there, thought it advisable to despatch the Nii-yin, Iljidae [the Ilchikdie of
others. See page 1049], and Kyuk Khan, son of Uktae, with troops,
towards the frontiers of the country of Kolghin [७५5], or Kolkain [५5].
After slaughtering the people and devastating the ¢ountry, according to the
fashion of modern Christian warriors, they reduced it ; and an Amir of Ting-

kit, named Bahadur [,'y2], with a strong force, was left to hold it.

I notice that Colonel C. M. MacGregor, C.B,, in his Gazetteer entitled ‘‘ Cen-
tral Asia: Afghanistan,” Part II., in his article on ९" Kiiram,” has been led into
an unfortunate error respecting the death of the Chingiz Khan, on the autho-
rity of one of the writers he quotes : viz., ^" Wood, Burnas, Moorcroft,’”’ but
which of the three does not appear. He says, page 573, ‘‘It is said that
Jangez Khan [this is the ‘‘ popular = way of writing the name] died here from
the effects of a melon sent to him from Balkh, in which there was a little per-
nicious insect”! This place is but 113 miles in a direct line N.N.W. from
Kabul. Where Kabul? Where Tingkit? See page 1085, and note at page
1088,

To remedy the state of affairs just mentioned was Uktae’s first object after
he ascended the throne, and he prepared to despatch bodies of troops into
Various parts. Alfi says that as soon as he was established he despatched
Koktae and Swidie [Sahiidah] with three fomdss of troops—according to the
Pro-Mughal accounts three tomdns is the maximum strength of their armies,
and is, of course, wholly incorrect—into Kibchak—or Khifchak, as our author
Writes it—Bulghar, and Saksin. This is probably the reason why some
European writers have mixed up this expedition with the former one in which

4B2

1116 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

mander of it; and on that army marching towards that
territory it consisted of about 50,000 Mughals, and other

Swidiae [Sahiidah] and Jabah [Yamah] were engaged, already described in the
note at page 1000.

In 628 H., the Nii-yin, Jurmaghiin or Jiirmaghin, of the Mangkit tribe,
_ was despatched at the head of three fomans of horse [the ‘‘ three” fomans
again], which, as I have previously stated, nominally consisted of 1000 men
to each ming or hazarah, ten of which constituted a somdn, but really the
ming, instead of merely numbering 1000 men, was often double and quadruple
that number, as shown in note at page 1093. Our author’s estimate of the
strength of Jirmaghiin’s army is, I believe, nearest the truth.

Another object, and the principal one, in despatching Jirmaghiin, was to
operate against Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah ; and, at the time of
giving orders for the despatch of this army, Uktae turned his face towards one
of the leaders named Ititmas— U-l:3!—or Itmas—_~l.~|—as it is also written,
and said: ‘*If any one among ye is able to finish the affair of the Sultan it is
thou ;” and so it happened, according to the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir; for, when
Jarmaghin reached the vicinity of Isfahan, he detached Ititmas, with a body
of troops, in advance, to operate against the Sultan.

It is necessary here to go back a little. After the capture of Urganj of
Khwiarazm, the Chingiz Khan installed in that territory, as Shahnah or
Intendant, Chin-Timiir, sometimes called Jai-Timir, who belonged to one of
the tribes of the Kara-Khita-i, and this person is probably one of the family of
the Gir Khan, mentioned in the note on that dynasty, page 934. He had
remained Intendant in Khwarazm up to this period [he had never, as yet,
been governor of Khurasan, but he became so shortly after]; and, when
Uktae, before setting out towards Khitae, despatched the Ni-yin, Jirmaghin,
into Iran Zamin, he confirmed Chin-Timir in his former appointment [Fasib-i
says (1156 nominated him Hakim of all iran-Zamin in 628 H.], and com-
manded that all the Intendants in those parts should proceed, in person, to
Jiirmaghiin’s camp, and render him all possible aid. Jiirmaghiin crossed the
Amiiah in 627 H.

On receipt of this mandate, Chin-Timir set out by way of Shahristanah for
Jarmaghiin’s camp ; and the different Princes of the family of the Chingiz
Khan, located in the parts lying nearest to Khurasan, were directed to despatch
Amirs of their own, with their contingents, to join Jarmaghiin’s army. His
force of three कमर was thereby increased by 50,000 additional troops, thus
showing that our author's estimation of the number was pretty correct. The
number of followers with Jiirmaghiin’s whole force is said to have been
innumerable.

After that leader had, as he supposed, arranged the affairs of Khurasan, and
commenced his march westward, two Amirs of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Karachah
and Tughan-i-Sunkar, who were af Nishabir [se in AZSS.], commenced
attacking and making raids into the parts around, and slew the Intendants left
in Khurasan by Jurmaghiin ; and other ‘‘rebels” and ‘‘disaffected people ”
[all are rebels and disaffected people who prefer their former independence to
a foreign yoke in these enlightened days, as in the dark ages, so called] were
daily creating sedition in that quarter. Such being the case, Jiirmaghiin sent
back Chin-Timir, along with his deputy, Kalbad, with troops, against these
Khwarazmi Amirs [they were, as their names indicate, Turks of Kbwirazm] in

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1117

races of Turkistan, and captives of Khurasan; and the
number, which turned their faces towards ‘Irak, amounted,
in all, to about 100,000 horse.

On reaching that country in the year 628 H.,° they
massacred so many of the people of that territory and
parts adjacent that the pen hath not the power of record-
ing them ; and all the cities of ‘Irak, and the Jibal [of
"Irak-i-’Ajam], of Aran, of Azarbaijan, Gildan, the territory
of Rustam-dar, which is on the shores of the Bahr-i-
Khurz [the Caspian sea], as far as the Dar-band-i-Rim
{the Caspian Gates], and Tabaristan, the whole were
ravaged, pillaged, and laid waste, with the single excep-
tion of the city of Safahan [Isfahan], which was not taken
for a period of fifteen years after the first irruption of the
Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, and the entry of his forces
into the country of ‘Irak, as will be subsequently recorded
in its proper place. |

That army of Mughals [under Jurmaghin] entered
through the Hulwan Pass, and ravaged the country up to
the neighbourhood of the metropolis of Islam—the city of
Baghdad. On several occasions, from the Court of the
Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mustansir Biillah, the Maliks of
Islam, with the troops of ’Ajam, and Turks,’ Kurds, and
"Arabs [in his service], were despatched to repel the
Mughals and the infidel hosts. They [the troops of the
Khalifah] frequently engaged in holy warfare against the
infidels, and encountered them in many conflicts; and,
upon all occasions, the troops of Islam were triumphant
and victorious. During that period, in no way, could
the infidels seize upon any of the parts adjacent to, and
[immediately] round about, the Dar-ul-Khilafat, Baghdad.

the direction of Nishabitr and Tiis ; and, after the rout of one of them—Kara-
chah— Kalbad returned to Jiirmaghiin’s army again, and Chin-Timir appears,
from what followed, to have returned to his post in Khwarazm and Mazan-
dara, which events will be found referred tu at page 1120, note 2,

५ All the copies of the text have 623 H., which, of course, is a great error,
since the Chingiz Khin only died in 624 H., and Uktae succeeded in the third
month of 626 H. : 623 is evidently a mistake of eS for ७८७ and, besides, at
page 1109 he states that Jirmaghiin was despatched in 626 H.

7 Turks had been entertained in the service of the Khalifahs for three
centuries previous to this period.

8 See note °, page 711.

1118 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI. .

The accursed Jurmaghiin, who was the commander of
the infidel Mughals, pitched his camp in the neighbour-
hood of Kum and 1251171, and some [of his forces] he
despatched on incursions into Fars and Kirman. The
Ata-Bak, Abi-Bikr of Fars, who is the sovereign of that
territory, and likewise the brother of the Hajib, Burak,’

® There isa mistake here: it is his brother’s son who is meant. Burak,
the Hajib, is the traitor who managed to obtain possession of Kirman, and
who afterwards murdered Malik Ghiyag-ud-Din, Ak Sulfan, brother of Sultin
Jalal-ud-Din. To make interest with the Mughals, and get confirmed in his
usurpations, he sent the head of that Prince to Uktae Ka’an, and he was con-
firmed in the rulership of Kirman. This ‘‘illustriows man,” par excellence,
came into Khwarazm, along with his brother, Husim-ud-Dim, Hamid-i-Bur,
in the reign of Sultan Takish, along with others, to collect the tribute for the
Gir Khan of Kara-Khifae, and they wete induced to remain in Khwiarazn,
and there turned Musalmans. Some say they were not permitted to retum;
but this seems improbable, as they are said to have been brothers of Jai-Timir-i-
Taniko, or Baniko, son of Kaldiiz, chief of Tarizy the leader of the Gir
Khin’s army; and others, again, that they came after the defeat of their
elder brother, Baniko. Whether they were detained or mot, or came after or
before Baniko’s defeat, they rose in the service of Sultan Takish and his
successor ; and Kiwak Khan, son of Hamid-i-Biir, becante the eommander of
a body of troops, and was killed at Bukhara when the Chingiz Khan appeared
before it, and Burak, Hamid’s brother, became one of the Sulfan’s chamber-
lains. Another brother was styled Aghiiz Malik. See page 282, note ’, page
283, and note to page 934.

This ‘‘ illustrioas man ’’—illustrious for the murder of hig master and bene-
factor’s son, and treashery towards another, to whom he presented a daughter
for his Aaram —reeeived from Sulfan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Pir Shah, the title of
- Kutligh Sultan, and from the Mughal Ka’an, to whom he sent Ghiyis-ud-
Din’s head, the title of ° Kutligh Khan, Sabib [i.e. Lord] of Kirman.”
Burak died in 632 H., and Kufb-ud-Ntn, Abi-l-Fath, son of Jai-Timir-i-
Baniko, or Tantko, who stood in the position of nephew, step-son, and son-
in-law to Burak, assumed the authority, according to the latter’s will.

In the same year, several of the Khwarazmi Amirs, wko, on the arrival of the
Mughal army at Urganj, had fled from thence, and had come to Shiraz, to the
Court of Salghur Sultan, Ab&-Bikr-i-Sa’d, from thence came [with their fol-
lowers] to Jiraft of Kirman. They were Aor Khan, Siinj Khan, and Timir
Malik, that second Rustam and second Isfandiyar, the defender of Khujand
[See note at page 972, para. 3]; and from Jiraft they unexpectedly made a =
dash upon this same Kutb-ud-Din, son of Jai-Timir-i-Taniko, but he encoun-
tered and overthrew them. Some of the party, which appears to have been
not very numerous, were killed in the encounter, some were taken prisoners,
and some took to flight. After the victory, Kutb-ud-Din treated his captives
with favour, gave them dresses of honour, and sent them back to Shiraz; and
the Ata-Bak, .\bii-Bikr, son of Sa’d, sent, and made apologies to Kufb-ud-
Din, and stated that.he had been totally unaware of their intention. These
Kutb-ud-Din accepted, and deelared himself satisfied. In 633 H. he pro-
ceeded to the Urd# of Uktae Ka’in, in order to get his accession to the sove-
reignty of Kirman acknowledged and confirmed, but the Ka’an directed that

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1119

the Khita-1, who had become ruler of Gawashir and Kir-
man, entered into an accommodation with the Mughal
forces, and agreed upon a fixed sum as tribute which they
should pay them yearly.’ The territories of Fars and
Kirman, through that conclusion of peace, became tran-
quillized, and remained safe from the molestation of the
forces of the Mughal infidels. The whole of the remainder
of the cities of ’Irak, Azarbaijan, and Tabaristan, were
ruined and destroyed.

At this period, likewise, armies of Mughals were nomi-
nated to march from the side of Turkistan into the terri-
tories of Kabul, Ghaznin, and Zawulistan; and Malik
Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh—the Almighty’s mercy
be upon him!—when he saw, on several occasions, that
he could not resist the power of the infidel Mughals
except in the way of enduring vassalage, submitted to be
dependent on them, and consented to receive Shahnahs
[Intendants] ; and the Maliks of Ghir and Khurasan like-
wise all obtained Shahnahs.

The Bahadur, Ta-ir, was appointed to proceed into the
territory of Hirat from Turkistan, and Mughal forces
advanced towards the country of Nim-roz. These events
came to pass in Sijistan and Nim-roz, on the second occa-
sion, during the time of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin,
the Khwarazmi, who, in Sistan, had acquired strength, and
had laid in abundant stores and munitions of war. In

Kutb-ud-Din should be sent away into Khitae to serve under the Sahib Wazir,
Mahmiid, Yalwaj, and the vassal sovereignty over Kirman was given to the late
Burak’s son, Rukn-ud-Din, Mubarak-i-Khwajah Jak, and he was installed on
the 28th of Sha’ban, 633 H. 4

Rukn-ud-Din ruled sixteen years, and was afterwards deposed by command
of Mangi' Ka’an, in 650 H. ; and Kutb-ud-Dfn, son of Jai-Timir-i-Binifko,
was restored. Subsequently, Kutb-ud-Din, by the Ka’an’s command, put
the deposed Rukn-ud-Din to death.

This Jiraft is the same well-known city, two miles in extent, which, in a
work entitled ‘‘ Zastern Persia,” “with an Introduction by Maj.-General Sir
F. J. Goldsmid, K.S.I.,” one of the contributors, Major 0. B. St. John, R.E.,
says was ‘‘not a town, but a district” !

Tavernier, who visited it, says ‘‘Girefte,” as he spells it, “is one of the
biggest cities in the province of Kerman,” and that its trade is ‘‘ hones and
wheat.”

1 See page 180. There our author says that Abi-Bikr brought dishonour
and reproach upon himself through becoming tributary to the infidels, See
also note * to the same page.

1120 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the year 625 H.,a Mughal army entered the territory of
Nim-roz and invested the fortress of Uk of Sijistan, which
lies in the direction of north-east from the Shahristan of
Sistan.? For a period of nineteen months that army sat

2 When intimation reached Uktae Ka’an of the agitated state of affairs in
the provinces of Khuradsan, he directed that the Bahadur, Ta-ir, who, as
stated by our author farther on, at this time was located in the territory of
Hirat, and stationed at Badghais, which is a dependency of Hirat, should
move from that place, with his troops, against Karachah, one of the two Amirs
of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, referred to in the note at page 1116, who was still fight-
ing against the Mughals. Badghais, the chief place of this district, I beg leave
to say, is not and never was called Sddkhis or Badgheis. It is the place before
which Tikchar, one of the sons-in-law of the Chingiz Khan, was killed, as
mentioned in note at page 989. There is no kh in the word: it is written
en) 4

Ta-ir was directed to crush Karachah, according to the Fandkati, and put
down the outbreak with the utmost severity. He began his march accordingly,
but, on the way, heard of the reduction and rout of Karachah having been
already effected by Kalbad, and that the former had taken refuge within the
fortress of Uk of Sijistan or Zawulistin. On this, the Bahadur, Ta-ir,
marched against it, invested it for a period of two years; and at length, the
walls having been mined, the fortress was taken.

After the Bahadur, Ta-ir, had gained possession of the fortress of Ok of

mandate received from the Court of the Ka‘an, the government of Khurasan
had been assigned to him, Ta’ir, and requested that Chfn-Timir would
refrain from exercising any authority therein. He replicd that the statement
that the people of Khurdsan were rebellious was false, and that therefore he
could not see why such an extensive tract of territory, and so many subjects,
should be ruined on account of the misdeeds of Karachah ; no doubt referring .
to what had already taken place in Sijistan and Khurasin. Chin-Timir fur-
ther stated that he would transmit a statement of the case to the Ka’an, and
act as he might be instructed.

This reply was not palatable to the agent of Ta-ir, and he left the presence
of Chin-Timir in a rage. Subsequently, at Ta-ir’s request, probably, the
Nii-yin, Jirmaghiin, sent to Chin-Timir, requesting that he, along with the
Amirs despatched by the Princes [mentioned in the previous note] to reinforce
him, would return to Khwarazm and Mazandaran, where he had been Inten-
dant, and leave the affairs of Khurasan in Amir Ti-ir’s hands.

Chin-Timir had nominated Kalbad, one of his principal retainers, to accom-
pany the Amirs of the Princes on their return from Khurisan to the presence of
the ई 2. दा, to do homage, and give an account of these affairs. At this junc-
ture, Malik Bahad-ud-Din, Sa’liik, on the stipulation that he should be allowed
to proceed to the presence of the Ka’an, came down from his stronghold in
Mazandaran, and submitted. Chin-Timir returned from Mazandaran, whither
he appears to have gone ; and the holders of most of the strong fortresses of
Khurisin, on the report of Baha-ud-Din having submitted, tendered submis-
sion likewise. On the arrival of Baha-ud-Din, Chin-Timir treated him with
the utmost consideration ; and another Malik, at this time, also came from
Mazandaran for the purpose of proceeding tu the presence of the Ka’an to do

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1121

down before the fortress; but, notwithstanding all the
efforts and exertions which the Mughal infidels used to

homage, namely, the Asfahed [see note ', page 262, para, 4], ’Ala-ud-Din of
the Kabiid Jamah—in one copy of the Fanakati’s work styled Nusrat-ud-Din—
he having been approved of by his people and kinsmen for that purpose.

These two Maliks set out for the Urdie-Baligh, accompanied by Kalbad, in
630 प्र. As, previous to this occasion, not one of the great Amirs or Maliks of
Mazandaran had presented himself before a Mughal sovereign, Oktae Ka’an
was exceeding well pleased thereat, and he ordered entertainments to be
given in their honour, and showed them great favour. Chin-Timir and
Kalbad, in consequence, were distinguished by the Ka’an with various favours
and benefits ; and Uktae observed : ‘‘ During the period that Jirmaghin has
been away, and has gained possession of such an extent of territory, he has
never yet sent a single Malik to me, while Chin-Timir, with such a small
following and slender means, has done such good service. I therefore appoint
him to the government of Khurasan [as well as Khwarazm and Mazandaran
which he then held], and no other Amirs shall have aught whatever to do
with those parts.” Kalbad was also associated with Chin-Timir [subordinate
to him]; and the Ka’an conferred, in fief, upon the Asfahed of the Kabid
Jamah, the tract extending from the limits of the Kabiid Jamah territory to
Astar-abad, and, upon Baha-ud-Din, Sa’luk, the districts of Isfaratn, Ji-in,
Baihak, Ja-jurm, Khirand, and Arghaian ; and, to each of them, the Ka’an
presented a commission written in gold, and gave a yarligd, or patent, to
Chin-Timir.

When Chin-Timir became duly installed, in accordance with the yarligh
of the Ka’an, he appointed Sharaf-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Yazdi, to
be the Wazir of his government, and Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad, the
Ja-ini, the Sahib-i-Diwani, or Head of the Revenue Department, and that
department under him assumed order and lustre. Not long after this, Chin-
Timir was about to despatch an official, named Kirkiiz, also written Kurkiz,
on a mission to the presence of the Ka’an, but Kalbad strongly objected to it,
saying: ‘‘ He is an I-ghiir, and will take care to make matters subservient to
his own interests only, and therefore it is not advisable to send him.” Chin-
Timir, however, did not alter his determination, and Kirkiz was despatched.
Contrary to Kalbad’s expectations, when he reached the presence of the
Ka’an, and the latter inquired of him respecting the state of the people, and
the territory of Khurasain, and other provinces under the control of Chin-
Timir, he gave such details and information as greatly pleased the Ka’an, and
made him well satisfied, and he expressed himself accordingly. Kiirkiiz was
sent back again, having fulfilled his mission in the manner desired, and, the
requests made having been granted, he returned ; and, shortly after [in 633 H.],
Chin-Timir died.

D’Ohsson has made a muddle of these affairs, if the extract contained in the
^ Mongols Proper” [pp. 133, 134] be from his work, and he could scarcely
have understood the passage, or else he had an incorrect manuscript before
him, whereby a good man, and an efficient administrator, is turned into a
tyrant, torturer, and extortioner, and a causer of disaffection through his exac-
tions. His co-partner, Kalbad, figures under the name of X¢/i/at, and as the
‘general of Chin Timur :” and such is history !

Amir Chin Timir having died in 633 H., Amir Tiisal—J5;—whom some
style Usal—Jlsy!- was nominated to succeed him in the government of {ran-

1122 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

make, in no way did they succeed in gaining possession
of that fortress and city, until pestilence overcame the

Zamin [as much of it as was under Mughal sway at that period], but the
executive authority was administered by his Deputy, Kiirkiz, already referred
to. Tisal or Usal died in 638 H., and Amir Arghiin, the Ufr-at, was nominated _
to succeed him, after he had acquired the requisite acquaintance with the duties
of the office of Bakhshi-gar, and proficiency in the duties of the Batak-chian
department. He was first despatched to make a report on the manner in
which Kirkiz had administered the government, and, subsequently, held it
himself for ten years. The fate of Kirkiiz will be related subsequently.

This is stated differently in Alfi, wherein it is mentioned that in the year
627 H., Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, the Khwarazmi, having raised the banner of
sovereignty in Sijistan, an army of Mughals was sent against him, but under
what leader is not mentioned, and that the fortress of Ok [9], which is
situated in the north-east part of that territory, was invested. The investment
was carried on fora period of nineteen months; and all the efforts of the
Mughals to take the fortress were of no avail, until pestilence arose, and then
it fell. Our author may have mistaken the year, or perhaps it is the mistake
of a scribe ; and, taking into consideration the date of Oktde’s accession, Alfi
appears to be correct.

-This is the affair related by our author above. He was resident in the
neighbourhood, was moving about those parts just before these events took
place—as has been related, and will be again mentioned farther on—and was
personally acquainted with the defender of this fortress, and therefore is
worthy of credit. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, must have been the per-
son referred to by the Fanakatf as Karachah, or the latter joined bim.
That author, however, gives no further account of these proceedings, and the
two Khwarazmf Amirs are not again referred to by him, and, such being the
case, our author’s account is evidently the correct one. For some account of
Binal-Tigin and his fate, see pages 599 to 202.

Uk, which is a well-known place in history, was never called ९" Oke” nor
“ Hok,” as it appears in a recent compilation, unless such can be made out of
&‡1 which would be rather difficult. It has been in ruins for many years ;
and Afghans have often brought me Bakhtrian and Sasanian coins from it.
Its site is between Farah and Zaranj, or the city of Sistan or Sijistn, as it is
also called.

Uk is also the place referred to at pages 34 and 201, but regarding which
the different copyists, with scarcely an exception, from its similarity to 6,!—
arg, a citadel—and from its being mentioned in connexion with alsi—£ala’s,
a fortress—have jumped at the conclusion that arg must be meant. I find an
example of great sagacity of this kind in the Xo. As. Society's copy of the
Fanakati’s work. The word was correctly written with 3 but someone sarily
erased the letter to make an , of it !

The fortress of Uk is again mentioned, nearly three centuries after, when,
in 908 H., Sulfain ’Ali, the Arghiin, brother of the Amir, Zii-un-Niin, Arghin,
was governor or feudatory of the territory of Sijistan, at which time, at the
instigation of Khuda Kuli, governor of the fort of Lash, Sultin Husain Mira
despatched a force against Sultan ’Alf.

The word Shahristan signifies the walls round a city, also a kighk with
many gardens ; but this place is one of the very few old sites, the names of
which exist unaltered to the present day. The Shahristan stands upon oF

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1123

Musalmians of the fortress, and until matters reached such
a pitch among the people thereof, that one or two hundred
men, who would be collected together in one place, would
suddenly—Be the readers preserved from such a fate !—
pass to the Almighty’s mercy.

Trustworthy persons have related that, one night, the
people of the fortress projected the formation of an am-
buscade during the night, for the purpose of repelling the
Mughal troops, and that they should conceal themselves
among some of the kilns outside the northern gate. It
was determined that, when the morning dawned, [a body
of] fighting men should issue from the eastern gate of the
citadel, and engage in holy warfare [with the enemy],
and, when the Mughal troops should turn their faces
towards that body of holy-warriors which should issue
from the eastern gate, the kettle drums should be sounded
on the summit of the fort. Then the body of men in
ambush outside the northern gate should, on hearing the
sound of the kettle drums, disclose the ambuscade, and
should advance on the rear of the infidel army, and fight
for the faith as by the tenets thereof enjoined. According
to this determination, about 700 men, Tilakis,> in com-
plete panoply, issued from the fortress at midnight, and
proceeded to the spot fixed upon for the place of ambus-
cade, and there took up their position. At daybreak the
next morning, after having performed their religious
duties, the people of the fortress donned their arms and
issued forth from the eastern gate, and began the attack
upon the infidels. The Mughals, from their camp, turned
their faces towards those Musalmans, the champions of
the faith, and a severe action commenced ; and, when the

close to the ruins of the place here referred to. As I have before mentioned,
Zaranj was the capital city of the territory called Sijistan by ’Arabs, and by
the people Sigistin and Zawulistan ; and the name of ‘‘ city of Sistan ” or “ Si-
jistin,” applied to that city, is after the same fashion as styling Urganj, Khwa-
थ्या. The MASALIK WA MAMALIK says that an ancient city of Sistan way
called Ram Shahristan, and that Zaranj was founded by people from that
place. There would be nothing easier than to take it for granted that the
fortress here referred to is the citadel of the city of Sistan, but Zaranj is not
teferred to. The fortress in question is a totally different place, and in 4
different situation.
3 It is explained at page 1062 how the Tilakis got there.

1124 THE TABAKAT-J-NASIRI.

forces on both sides mingled together at close quarters,
with sword, spear, and arrow, according to the previous
night’s arrangement, they beat the kettle drums within the
fortress for the purpose of unmasking the ambuscade.
Once, twice, the drums sounded, but not a man issued
from the ambuscade ; and, of that whole body, not a trace
could be discovered. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin,
despatched confidential persons, saying: “Go ye and see
what is the cause of this delay of the ambuscade party.”
When those sent came to the spot they found the whole
700 men dead, for they had surrendered their lives to God;
and there was no sign of life in any one of them. God
preserve us from the like! '

This catastrophe has been recorded here in order that
those who look into these pages may know, for certain,
that, when the wrath of God, the Most High, ariseth, such
like marks of punishment are manifested.

Trustworthy persons have related that the most common
and violent manner in which the pestilence affected the
people of the fort of Ok of Sistan was this, that their
mouths would begin to ache, and their teeth to become
loose, and, on the third day, they used to resign their lives
to their Creator. The state of the people of the fortress
continued in this way until, suddenly, a woman among the
inhabitants thereof became attacked with the aching of the
mouth, and, on the second day, her teeth became loose.
She had a little daughter, and, on the third night,‘ she
called her unto her, seated her by her, and said: “My
dear | to-night I will anoint thy hands and feet with (धथ
with mine own hands, for to-morrow is the third day, and
the hour of thy mother’s decease.” With this view she
applied Aina to the hands and feet of her little daughter.
It is usual with women that, when they apply Aiand to
the hands and feet of any one, they apply the fingers to
the tongue in order that the fingers may be moistened
with the saliva of their mouths, and then they apply the
hinna to the part to be dyed. Having applied the snd
to her little daughter’s hands and feet, she resigned her
heart to death, and went to sleep. In the morning, the

+ It must be remembered that the night precedes the day in the computation
of Oriental peoples.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 11285

woman’s teeth had become firmly fixed at the roots, and
the aching of the mouth had entirely passed away. When
the third day came and passed, the neighbours and ac-
quaintances found her recovered, and, on the fourth day,
she had become quite well again.

People were astonished, and they made inquiry of her
about it, saying : “ How has it come about, and by what
means, that thou art still alive, the disease of the mouth
gone, and thy teeth firm? What medicine didst thou
take, and what remedy apply ?” The woman replied: “I
had no medicine whatever, and took none: Almighty God
restored me to health.” They said: “ He is the Author of
all things, but, really, what act didst thou put in practice,
and what operation was performed by thee?” The woman
mentioned the application of 422d to her daughter’s hands
and feet, the incident of wetting her fingers, and, by that
action, of the (द reaching her mouth. The whole [of
the neighbours and acquaintances] concurred together that .
the cure for this disease was inna ; and it so happened
that this circumstance reached the [hearing of the] people
of the fort, and the incident became diffused, and matters
came to such a state, that every one who was attacked with
this disorder they used to put (दढ in the mouth of, and
such person would recover. A mann of hinnd reached
the price of two hundred and fifty golden dindrs, and
whoever possessed any acquired great wealth by disposing
of it.

Almighty God hath many favours for His servants, but
for death there is no antidote!

At last, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, was struck in
the eye by an arrow, and that eye was lost; and, sub-
sequent to that accident, he was. directing the defence of
the fortress from the top of one of the towers, when, sud-
denly, he lost his footing and fell from the top of the fort
to the ground, and was taken prisoner. He was made a
martyr of, and the fortress of Uk of Sijistan fell into the
hands of the Mughals ; and the inhabitants were martyred,
after a great number of the infidels had gone to hell, as
has been previously recorded herein.

May God, the Most High, continue the Sultan of Islam,
NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, MAHMUD SHAH, who is

1126 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the Badshah of the present time, upon the throne of sove-
reignty, victorious and triumphant |

ACCOUNT OF THE DESPATCHING OF MUGHAL FORCES
TOWARDS GHAZNIN AND LUHAWAR.§

When Uktae ascended the throne, he [likewise] gave
orders for forces to proceed towards Ghir and Ghaznin,
andthe Bahadur, T4-ir, who had displayed great zeal and
energy during the fighting in Sijistan under the standard
of one of the great Ni-ins, was made their commander.
This great Mughal Ni-in [Ta-ir’s leader] in the fighting
before Uk of Sijistan had gone to hell, and Uktae com-
manded that the Bahadur, Ta-ir, should become the head
and commander of that Mughal army, in his place.‘

ॐ Written here, as elsewhere, Luhawar and Lohor.

6 Who this great Ni-yin was does not appear, and he is not referred to by
others. Ta-ir was in these parts, according to the Histories quoted, previous
to the accession of Uktae Ka’an, as early as Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 626 H. ; and, as
already narrated, he was subsequently ordered to aid in putting down the
outbreak of Karachah, so called, in the districts dependent on Nishabir.
After that, Ta-ir invested the fortress of Uk of Sijistian. Our author says
it held out nineteen months, but some of the Histories, quoted in the pre-
vious notes, say it occupied Ta-ir two years ; and, under these circumstances,
the fortress could not have fallen before the close of the year 628 H., or
deginning of 629 H., and not in 625 H., as our author states at page 201.
Lahor was not taken until upwards of fen years after the affair of Uk.

The Tarikh-i-Alfi states that, in 633 H., Uktae despatched armies into
various parts, including an army, under a leader named Mukanii [ 5% y.}-—in
some copies, Mukati [ ,3%y.]—towards Hind and Kashmir, and that, after
Yavaging many tracts of country, he returned again [into his own territory].

This is an important item of information, for it clears up a very obscure
part of our author’s account of Sultan I-yal-timish’s reign, at page 623, when
‘he set out towards Banian, and had to return through the illness of which he
afterwards died ; for our author has not stated whom he marched against, bat
it is evident, from the direction there indicated, and the year, that he must
have been marching against this very Mukati, when sickness obliged him to
return, There is nothing mentioned in the Histories of Kashmir, of which
there are several, of any such invasion.

The Ni-yin, Mangitah, we first hear of in Indian History, in 643 ४
Mukatii must be a different person.

The capture and ruin of Hirat by the Ni-yin, Iljidde, or Ilchikdae, nephew
of the Chingiz Khan, in 620 H., and the massacre of its inhabitants, all but
eighteen persons, has been already described. Of these survivors seven
remaincd hidden among its ruins, while eleven were at Kalah-i-Koh, and the
Khatib, the Maulina, Sharaf-ud-Din, was included among them.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1127

When they [the Mughal troops] from Sijistan entered

After the infidel Mughals, and Tattars, had taken their departure from
Firat and its territory, these sixteen persons—all men, it appears—issued from
their places of concealment, and assembled before the shop of a certain halwa-i
or confectioner, and began to look about them in all directions. Seeing no
one, they stroked their faces and exclaimed: ‘‘ Thanks be unto God, that
during our existence we can once more breathe freely!” After this, these
sixteen, the unfortunate remnant of the inhabitants of Hirat, were joined by
twenty-four others from the places adjacent to that city ; and, for sixteen years,
it is said, ^^ there were no other inhabitants in Khurdsan; and, for some time,
from the banks of the Jibiin or Amitiah to the territory of Astar-abad, if there
were any people who had escaped with their lives in some out-of-the-way
place, they must have existed upon such things as the dead left unconsumed.”

These forty persons passed their time in the tomb of Sultan Ghiydg-ud-Din,
Mubammad-i-Sam, Ghiri, which had not been destroyed by the infidels. A
full account of the matter of these persons, and their names, is reeerded in the
History of Hirat.

In the year 635 H.—but Alfi says in 634 H.—Uktae Ka’an gave orders that
the cities of Khurasan destroyed by the Mughals should be restored, and
among them was Hirat ; and those people of the weaver class, who had been
removed from Hirat when that city surrendered to Tali Khan in 618 H., and
had been located in Turkistan and Mughalistan by him, were made the instru-
ments in commencing this good work. The chief men and heads of families
among these weavers were the Mukaddam [he is also styled Amirand Peshwa,
but not signifying a chief, a noble, or a leader here, but Provost] of the Guild
of Weavers of Hirat, ’Izz-ud-Din, Hirawi [from Hiri or Hirat]; Jalal-ud-Din,
Malini; Sa’id, Badghaisi ; and five others. It had been mentioned to the
Ka’an that one of the cities in question was Hirat, and he had been told much
respecting its former pepulousness, wealth, and prosperity; so he was the
more desirious of re-peopling it. ’Izz-ud-Din, the Provost, with his family
and kinsmen, had been located at Bésh-Baligh ; and he had obtained access
to the Ka’an’s presence, and used, every year, to manufacture a thousand suits
(pieces, probably] of clethes of excellent quality for his use. He was now
summoned to the presence of Uktae, who said: ‘‘I am going to send thee for
the purpose of re-peopling and restoring Hirat. Art thou able to do so,
quickly, thinkest thou, so that people may be able to say that Hirat is some-
thing like itself again?” ’Izz-ud-Din replied that, under favour of such a
great monarch, he could do so; and that every year he would send, for the
Ka’an’s use, 2000 suits of clothes of various delicate colours, such as, in the
atmosphere of those northern parts, it was impossible to produce, equal in
colours and texture to those of Khuraisin. Uktae, accordingly, despatched
him ; and he was allowed to take fifty of his people along with him, and was
also furnished with a mandate to collect people from all parts of Khurasan,
and locate them at Hirat.

"Izz-ud-Din set out ; and, on the arrival of the exiles in the neighbourhood
of Hirat, the Khatib, Sharaf-ud-Din, and the others, who had been living in
concealment, came forth to meet them, and conducted them into Hirat ; and
they set about its restoration, Having made some progress, in the following
year [636 H.], the Provost, ’Izz-ud-Din, set out for the urd of the Ka’an to
arrange certain matters in connexion with the restoration of the city, and made
a request that he might be permitted to remove to Hirat his own family, and

1128 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.

Khurasan, the Ni-in, Anban,? and the Ni-in, Niki-dar,
and the troops which were in the territory of Ghir and
Khurasan, marched towards Ghaznin. Previous to this,
they had driven* from Banian Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan,
the Karlugh, and had entered into a stipulation with him
for payment of tribute, but, notwithstanding this, they
were desirous of getting Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the

Karlugh, into their hands, and they had been unable to

also the two hundred other families located in Turkistan and Mughalistan.
His request was so far complied with that he was allowed to take away with
him his own family, and one hundred—some say fifty—other families ; but,
on reaching Faryab, death overtook him. On this, his son, Shams-ud-Din,
Muhammad, who then succeeded to his father’s office and title of Provost, con-
ducted the families to Hirat, after which he retraced his steps to the presence
of Uktae. This was inthe year in which Mahmiid, the Tarant, broke out in
Bukhara. Having reached the Ka’an’s Urdi, he solicited that a Shabnah or
Intendant should be appointed to Hirat, and a Daroghah [Warden, Provost,
etc.]. A Karligh Turk, but whose name is not mentioned, unfortunately,
was nominated to the first-mentioned office, and a Mughal named Mangasae
to the last. The former was of the same tribe—but, probably, of the other
branch—as Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karligh, referred to in the text
above. See note ॥, next page.

Shams-ud-Din, Mubammad, and the Karligh, reached Hirat together, but
the control of the civil affairs was left, as before, in the Provost’s hands. Ina
short time the Jii-e Injil—a canal so called—was opened and brought into
Hirat, and the Burj-i-Karligh built, and named after the Intendant in ques-
tion. In 638 प. Malik Majd-ud-Din, the Kal-yini, was made govemor of
Hirat, by command of Bati Khan [this must have been at the time Uktie,
from his excessive inebriety, had to be looked after, as stated in note >, page
1142, and Batii Khan did so by virtue of his position as head of the family.
He subsequently exercised authority after Uktade’s decease, and again
during the interregnum after Kyiik Khiin’s death, as will be noticed far-
ther on] and the Mukaddam, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, was relieved of
his duties. Majd-ud-Din, in concert with the Karligh Intendant, opened the
Alanjan canal, which became the source of such great prosperity to the Hirat
district.

Majd-ud-Din was put to death, after the decease of Uktie Ka’an, in 640H.,
by command of the Ni-yin, Kirkiiz, and his head was brought to him at Tis;
but, in the following year, Prince Batii, as my authority styles him, made
Majd-ud-Din’s son, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Ka4l-yini, governor of
Hiedt, but he died from the effects of poison in the following year.

7 This name is somewhat doubtful. It is written Anban—.\jl—as above,
Indn—,k,!—and Anfan—y\il—also I-tin—,o|—Abtan—.lyl—and Astan—
८४८1 Ido not find the name among the great Ni-yins of the Chingiz Khan.
Anban is also a title of rank.

४ The word used in the text—Jol...— means ‘‘ extirpated,” ‘‘ rooted out,”
‘driven out,” ctc.; but, had such been the case, he could not have been
made a tributary. He had been already reduced to subjection and made
tributary, as already stated at page 119.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1129

effect their object. In the year 636 H., however, they
suddenly and unexpectedly attacked Malik Saif-ud-Din,
Hasan, and he fled discomfited from Karman,* Ghaznin,
and Banian, and came towards the Multan territory, and
the country of Sind. At that period the throne of Hin-
diistan was adorned by the Sultan Raziyyat—May she
rest in peace !—the daughter of the august Sultan, Shams-
ud-Din, I-yal-timish ; and the eldest son of Malik Saif-ud-
Din, Hasan, the Karlugh, presented himself before the
Dihli Court, and, by way of beneficence, the territory [fief]
of Baran was assigned to him.' Some time passed, when,

® See note’, page 498, para. 4.

1 Sultan Raziyyat reached Dihli, from Lahor, on the 19th of Sha’ban, the
eighth month of 637 H.

This favour was shown towards him because he was a Turk, as Raziyyat’s
father was, and also because a great number of the principal nobles were
Turks also. His name and title are Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mubammad. See
page 8671. Had he been a Mughal he would probably have been put to death,
or kept in durance until he died, as Barké Khan’s agents were, as will be
found mentioned farther on, although their sovereign was a Musalman.

The Karliighs or Karlughs, or Karliiks or Karluks, as the name is also
written, here referred to, belong to that portion of the tribe mentioned in
note 5, page 374, but I may add that there is no tribe of "^ Koorloogh (f70-
perly [1] called Kharlokh or Qarisk)” known to history. See Yournal Ro,
Geogr. Soc., 1872, note to page 509.

Thomas [‘' Pathdn Kings], noticing the coins of those Turkish chiefs,
says that “Saif ud din Hasan Karlagh,” as he styles him, ‘‘was one of
the lading generals of Faldl ud din Mankbarnin,” but where is the authority
for that statement? This chief has been mistaken for Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, a
totally different person, who deserted the Sultan, after his victory over the
Mughals near Barwan ; but he and all his followers were destroyed within a few
months of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din’s defeat on the Indus in 618 H., as mentioned
in Yafa’-i, in the Jahan-Kusha, and others, and detailed at the end of note 8,
page 1021. Hasan, the Karliigh, does not appear on the scene, east of the
Indus, until many years after this event. See the preceding page, and page
720.

At page 96 of his work, Thomas quotes Major-General A. Cunningham’s
“‘ Archeological Report to the Government of India,” for 1863-4, to show who
the ‘‘ Karlaghs ” were, but that statement is equally erroneous. Cunningham
makes them out to be Indo-Scythians, and subjects or dependents of the rulers
of Dihli, which they never were, the bestowal of Baran upon Hasan’s sop,
notwithstanding, since he left the Dihli frontier very soon after, and, probably,
never went to Baran at all. His going thither, moreover, would not have
made his family and tribe, west of the Indus, dependents upon the Dihli
empire.

In order to dispel this very erroneous supposition, and to throw some light
upon the matter, it will be well to give, in the first place, a short extract from
the ^. Report’? quoted by Thomas. Major-General Cunningham says :—

4 €

1130 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

unexpectedly, he left it; and, without the permission of
the Sultan, returned to the presence of his father.

९ The first invasion of the /sdo-Scythians must have caused a very general
displacement of the ruling races. .... The vanquished would naturally
have sought refuge in the less accessible districts around, and to this period,
therefore, I would refer the settlement of the dwdns and Fanjuhas in the Salt
Range to the south, and the Gakars in the hilly tracts of Pharwala and
Dangali to the south-east ” [but what have they to do with the KARLUGH
TuRKS?].

‘*Of their subsequent history but little is recorded ; ze know only that they
were divided into several branches, and that they all became Muhammadans.
[When, or in what year ?] Inthe time of Baber, the ruling tribe, called the
Karluki Hasdras, held the districts on both banks of the lower Suhan river,
under the chiefs Sangar Khan Xar/uki and Mirza Malvi Xar/uéi. Ata still
earlier period the chiefs of this tribe [!], Hasan Karluk and his son Muhammad,
had asserted their independence [of whom? and what history says so %], by
striking coins in their own names. The coins of the father are of the well
known ‘Bull and Horseman’ type, with the legend in Nagari letters, ‘ Srt
Hasan Karluk.’ The coins of the son are of three different kinds, two with
Persian characters only, and the third with Persian on one side and Nagari on
the other. On the last coin there is a rude figure of a horse surrounded by
the chief’s name, Médser [sic] ud क wa ud din, in Persian letters, and on the
reverse his name in three lines of Nagari letters, Sri Muhammad Karluk. On
one of the Persian coins this chief calls himself Muhammad bin Hasan Karluk
(4J5), and on the other he takes the title of u/-A/alik ul-Mua’sam bin Hasan.
From the types and general appearance of these coins their date may be fixed
with certainty as coéval with those of Altamish [I-yal-timish ?] and his sons,
or from A.D. 1210 to 1265. The accuracy of this date is strongly confirmed
by Ferishtah’s account [Dow’s or Briggs’s Ferishtah १] of the first campaign of
Naser-ud-din Mahmud, the youngest son of Altamish. In July, ^). 1247,
Mahmud proceeded to Multan [This is quite a mistake. See this Translation,
pages 677, 678, 679, 814, and 815. Multan is a blunder in the Calcutta
Printed Text for Baniaén—,\.—and, moreover, the expedition was against
०५ the infidels of Chin ”"—the Mughals—and ‘‘the Ranah of the Jiid Hills "—
८५ Jas-Pal, Sthra,” and the Khokhars, not the Karligh Turks, who had been
expelled from their own territory by the Mughals. Mahmiid left the capital,
not in July—the height of the of season, but in Rajab, 644 H., about
15th November, 1247 A.D., and advanced to the Siidharah and the Jhilam,
not the «° (लोला ”’}, from whence he sent his Vazer towards the mountains of
Jud and the provinces [Whose provinces ?] on the Indus. .... According
to this account, the rebellion [against whom was this rebellion, and what His-
tory says so?] lasted for about twelve years, from the death of Altamish, in
A.D. 1235, until the close of Mahmitd’s campaign in the end of 1247 [Did
the rebellion end then ?]. It is to this period that I refer the assumption of
independence [of whom १] by Hasan Karluk and his son Muhammad. The
age of these coins, as I have observed, corresponds exactly with the date of
this rebellion, and the coins themselves before [sic] are found in greatest
number in the rebellious districts of the mountains of Jud.”

The remarks ov these coins, and their correctness, are such as we might
expect from Major-General Cunningham’s knowledge of the subject, but the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1131

On Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh, entering
the country of Sind, the territory of Ghaznin, and Kar-

historical, as shown by our author, in various places in his History, and by
many other writers, are entirely erroneous, and are further proofs of the danger
of trusting to translations of ‘‘ Ferishtah.”

For what ‘‘can be made of the Indo-Scythian theory ’”’ in the ‘‘ Report?’ in
question, see the very pertinent remarks of Beames in his edition of Elliot’s
+° Memoirs on the History, Folk-lore, and Distribution of the Races of the North
Western Provinces of India,” London, 1869, pages 112, 113, 136, and 137;
but 7azziks, as well as Zurks, have been brought under the ^^ Indo-Scythian ”
system lately, as I have noticed in another place.

General Cunningham connects the Karliighs with his ‘‘ Jndo-Scythians”" of
the Salt Range, and makes Hasan, the Karliigh, and his son, Awans and
Janjhihis, and subjects of the Dihli kingdom, as he alludes to their ‘‘rebel-
lion.” They were, in no wise, connected with the Awans or Janjhihis, for
the very cogent reason that the Karliighs, who are constantly mentioned in the
account of the Mughals, are Turks, and were never subject to Dihli. Neither
I-bak nor I-yal-timish held any part of the Sind-Sagar Do-ahah, which, as
well as the country as far east as the Rawi, for some time was held by I-yal-
diz, and the southern part of that Do-abah by Kaba-jah. That portion of the
तं empire held by I-yal-diiz, consequent on his captivity and subsequent
death, fell under the sway of the Sultan of Khwirazm, to whom the Karligh
Turks were subject ; and, in the time of the Chingiz Khin’s advance to the
Indus, Kamr-ud-Din, the Karmani, had only shortly before been ousted from
the fortress of NANDANAH, by the Khwarazmi Amirs [See note ', page 534,
para. 7, and page 750]. Hasan, the Karligh, may have been connected with
this Kamr-ud-Din, and he may even have been Hasan’s father, for it is certain
that Hasan, the Karliigh, did hold Karman, as our author states above. There
were a number of Turkish tribes settled between Kabul and the Indus, The
reason why these coins are found in the parts indicated by General Cunningham
is, either that they formed part of the district or province of Banian, or
adjoined it, and Banian was held by the Karlighs. Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid
Shah, of Dihli, never held any territory west of the Jhilam, although Ulugh
Khan, his lieutenant, did, on one occasion, penetrate into it as far as the
Indus ; and, soon after, Mahmiid’s territory extended no farther west than the
Biah, as already stated. See also note ४, page 862.

Babar says—I quote from his Memoirs translated into Persian, of which
there are two versions, and have compared them with the Turkish original—
‘In the Zafar Namah, and some other books, this range [the पव Mountains]
is called and written, Koh-i Jiid. Why it received this appellation was not
discovered at first, but, afterwards, it was found that Jiid and Janjhihah were
two septs descended from one original. ... . In one half of this range are
the Jiid, and in the other the Janjhiihah [or Janjhihi]. The greatest of them
receives the name of Rae, and his brothers and sons receive that of Malik.
The Malik of the z/s and ४८757 round about the river Siihin was Malik Haibat.
.... As these few districts, such as Bharah, Khiish-ab, etc., had previously

been held dy the Turks, I was desirous of getting possession of them. ....
Sankar or Sangar Khan, the Janjhiihah, came in the same day, ....
There are Baliichis in the Bharah district... . . There are Jats and Gijars

as far as the mountains of Kashmir, and among these are numerous other

4९2

1132 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

man,” remained in the hands of the Mughal Shabnahs
[Intendants], until the year 639 H., when the Mughal
forces, and the troops of Ghir,’ were directed to advance
to Lohor. The Bahadur, Ta-ir, who was in possession of
Hirat and Badghais, and other Ni-ins who were holding

peoples.” Babar, of course, does not mean that these peoples were Turks.
They had been settled in these parts long before the Turks, even if we go as
far back as Mahmiid of Ghaznin, the ‘‘ Pathdn ” Turk of Dow, Briccs, etc.
The peoples which Babar refers to are Awan-kar, Gahep, Jat, Janjhihi, Halup,
Bhanehr, Bhaghial, Kahiin Jat, M4lir Jat, Kassur Jat, Kahtar, Gakhar, Tatrt,
also called Rathh, Gahral, besides Khokhars immediately south of the 19
Mountains in the Bharah and Khish-ab districts, and a few others.
Tabar also mentions giving ‘‘ Nil-ab and the Hazirah-i-Karlik or Karligh
Humfayiin,” and ‘‘Sunkar or Sungar, Karliik, Mirzie Malawi [iss],
Karlik, with some thirty or forty chief men of Karluik’’ coming in, and
making ‘‘ over the ds and s/dsis, such as Karliik, Hazarak, Hali, Dal, etc.”

Because Babar uses the Turkish words # and s/s for tribe and clan, in
writing of them in his work, it must not be supposed that all the people must
be Turks on that account.

We commonly hear of this tract of country referred to as Chach Hazarah,
and Taht Ilazirah, but, according to fact, Chachch is separate from Hazarah-
i-Karliigh, and the former lies nearer the Indus—along its banks really. It is
probable that some Karliighs may have been permanently located in this part,
as well as its being subject to the Karliighs, as previously referred to, but bow
it became styled Hazirah is very difficult to say, because, among all the mings
or Aazarahs of the Chingiz Khan, there was not one of Karligh Turks, but
a Karligh contingent of that portion of the tribe which continued in its old
seats did serve with the armies of the Chingiz Khan, in Khurasin and Ghir,
under their chief, Arsalin Khan of Kaialik, previously mentioned in several
places in this Translation.

What makes the matter still more complex is, that, in the original Memoirs
of Babar, I find, referring to the habitation of Tatar, the Gakhar, that it was
situated much lower down than the Karlik or Karlik [it is written both ways
in the original, and with gh for k for the final letter] Tagh—_ ८२५३ Gel,
७५२। Gi!) (295—which, in one of the Persian versions, is translated as ^" much
lower down than the 4oh-1-K@riih,” thus retaining the Turkish word, while
the other version gives the proper translation, ‘‘the 404-s-barf-dar, or Snowy
Mountains, which is to say, the Pir Pinjal Mountains.” It strikes me,
` therefore, that the non-translation of the word कनक or sadrlugh, signifying
‘*snowy,” or ‘pertaining to snow” [See the note on the Descent of the
Turks, and the term Karlik or Karligh, page 877]—the origin of the name
of the tribe—in the Persian version referred to, has had something to do
with this district having been styled ‘‘ Hazarah-i-Karlik,” and ‘‘ Karlik
Hazarah,” as well as from the probability of Karligh Turks having been
once stationed therein, but who had no blood connexion whatever with the
so-called ‘‘ Indo-Scythians.”

2 There were no Afghan tribes, at this period, dwelling in Kayman ; they
were located farther south, and south-west, and their power was not great.

3 Troops raised in those parts, or rather the contingents of those Musalman
chiefs and petty rulers who had submitted to the Mughal yoke.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1133

possession of the territories of Ghir, Ghaznin, the Garm-
sir, and Tukharistan, the whole of them, with their troops,
arrived on the banks of the river Sind. At this time,
Malik Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz was the feudatory of Multan,
and Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kush, was feudatory of
Lohor, and the throne of sovereignty had devolved upon
Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah.‘

When the news of the arrival of the Mughal forces
reached Multan, Malik Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz, for the sake
of his own dignity, assumed a canopy of state, assembled
troops, and made ready to do battle with the infidels.’ On
information of the number of his followers reaching the
Mughal camp, those infidels came to the determination of
advancing towards Lohor, and they appeared before the
gate of that city. The Hisar of Lohor was unprepared
with either stores, provisions, arms, or war materials ; and
the people of Lohor were not united, and did not harmo-
nize together. Most of the inhabitants of the city were
merchants and traders, and had undertaken journeys,
during the time of the Mughals, into the upper parts, into
Khurasan and Turkistan, and, by way of precaution, every
one of them had obtained a pass ° from the Mughal, and
a safe conduct, and, knowing this, in defending and fight-
ing for the safety of the Hisar’ of Lohor, they used not to
act in unison with Malik Kara-Kush, and would neither
render assistance nor make resistance, nor encounter the
enemy. The troops of Islam did not assemble together,
on this account, that the Turk and ग) पातं Maliks were dis-
trustful of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah ; and, con-
sequently, the army did not speedily set out from Dihli
for the purpose of repelling the Mughals.*

For some time fighting went on before the gate of the
city of Lohor, and the Mughal army planted a great
number of catapults*® round about the fortifications of that

५ See page 655.

$ See the account of Malik Kabir Khin-i-Ayaz at page 727, and page 730.

¢ The Printed Text uses s.i4—profit, advantage, etc., instead of १२४
—exempticn, immunity, and the like.

7 A walled city with a castle or citadel.

8 For the causes which led to the delay in relieving Lahor, see pages 655,

656, and 657.
9 The manjanik, or 4rd—the catapult or mangonel, which, under the name

1134 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

city, and destroycd the walls; and, to such degree as
Malik Kara-Kush was able, he remained and resisted the
infidels. On becoming aware of the disunion and dis-
cordant inclinations of the inhabitants, and, as the Kazi
and chief personages used to show great misconduct in
keeping guard on the walls of the city, Malik Kara-Kush
knew that the upshot of affairs would be disastrous, and
that the preservation of that city was beyond his power
and capability. He therefore came out of it with the
troops his followers, under the pretext of a night attack,
made a dash upon the camp of the infidels, and, in one
charge, broke through the ranks of the Mughal army, and
set out for Dihli. In that charge some of the principal
females of his Aavam and of his retinue got separated from
him. A number of his people were slain and made
martyrs of, and some, in the darkness of night, and in the
tumult, threw themselves off the backs of the horses and
hid themselves among the ruins and grave-yards. During
that tumult likewise, the females of the Malik’s saram
managed to conceal themselves somewhere.

The following day, when the inhabitants of the city and
fortress of Lohor, and the Mughal forces, became aware of
Malik Kara-Kush’s evacuation of the place, and of his
flight, the hearts of the former entirely broke, and the
Mughals became still more bold; and they captured the
city. Conflicts arose in every quarter of it, and the Musal-
mans fought continuously with the infidels ; but two bands
of Musalmans, in that disaster, girded up their lives like
their waists, and firmly grasped the sword, and, up to the
latest moment that a single pulsation remained in their
dear bodies, and they could move, they continued to wield
the sword’ and to send Mughals to hell, until the time
when both bodies, after fighting gallantly for a long period
against the infidels, attained the felicity of martyrdom.
One of that [band of] heroes was Ak-Sunkar,' the sene-

of trebuchet, will be found in FROISSART, and engraved in GrosE’s AMilstary
A ntiquities—was a kind of mechanical sling for casting stones, earth, and fire
against an enemy. Balista is not a correct rendering of the word, for a balista
or balister is a cross-bow.

1 He was a Turk. His name signifies the white sunkar, or gerfalcon, as is
supposed, referred to at page 752, note $.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1135

schal of Lohor, who, with his dependents, in combat,
and in conflict, surpassed, a thousand times, Rustam-i-
Dastan ; ` and the other hero was Din-dar Muhammad,
the Amir-i-Akhur [of Lohor], who, along with his sons
and dependents—May the Almighty reward them !—on
that day, waged holy-warfare, as by the tenets of the faith
enjoined, and fought against the unbelievers in such
manner as if the purified soul of ’Ali-i-Murtazi—May God
be gracious to him!—in concert with the whole of the
prophets and apostles, were showering blessings upon him
from the garden of paradise

When the Mughal forces captured the city,’ they
martyred all the inhabitants or made captives of them ;
but such a number of Mughals went to hell as cannot be
computed or numbered—about 30,000 or 40,000 Mughal
horsemen, with 80,000 horses, indeed more than they.
There was not a person among the infidel army that did
not bear the wound of arrow, sword, or ~dwak. The
greater number of the Mughal Ni-ins and Bahadurs also
departed to hell, and among them was the Bahadur, T4-ir.*
He had encountered Ak-Sunkar, lance to lance, and they
had wounded each other with those weapons. T4-1ir, the
Bahadur, went to hell, and Ak-Sunkar, the lion-hearted

3 See note ’, page 422

> The Mughals obtained possession of the city on Monday, the 16th of
Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 639 H

The Tarikh-i-Alfi says this happened in 628 of the Riblat = 638 H.
Quoting Pro-Mughal Histories, it says, an army of Mughals and Tattars
crossed the river Sind, and invested Luhawiir—,§,|J—soon captured it, and
made the younger part of the inhabitants, and the children, captive. Kutb-ud-
Din, Hasan, the Ghiri, was sent with an army from Dihli against them, but he
was too late. By the time he reached these parts the invaders had gone off.
This is a specimen how history is falsified to suit certain purposes. No notice
of the resistance made, nor of the losses sustained by the invaders, is eve
hinted at.

+ An arrow discharged through a tube—probably a cross-bow or balista, or
something similar.

* It is scarcely probable that our author is correct as to Ta-ir having been
killed on this occasion, for the Pro-Mughal writers mention him after this
affair, and state that when, in 651 H., Kubilae, brother of Mangii Ka’an, was
despatched into Kara Jang, Ta-ir was sent with an army into Kashmir and
Hindistan, and that, when he died, the Nii-yin, Sali, referred to at pages 711
and 862, got the command. Sali, Sari, or Salin, as it is also written, was of
one of the Tattar tribes.

1136 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

passed into paradise—‘ One company to heaven: one to
the flaming fire.” ^

After the Mughal forces had destroyed Lohor, and re-
tired, Malik Kara-Kush turned back again towards the
city from the vicinity of the river Biah, for, on the night of
his flight from thence, his Jamah-dars [wardrobe keepers]
had abandoned property of great value, consisting of pure
gold, and other valuables; and, they having marked the
spot, he returned to search for and recover the property.
On reaching the city of Lohor he recovered it, for it had
not fallen into the hands of the Mughals.

On the departure of the Mughal infidels, the Hmdi
Khokhars and Gabr’ wretches had come to Lohor, and
were committing destruction. Malik Kara-Kush discovered
them, despatched the whole of them to hell,*® and afterwards
reached the Court of Dihli in safety.

May Almighty God accord victory to the lords and
chiefs of the government of the Sultan of the Sultans of
Islam, and overthrow the foes of his kingdom! Amin!

ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF UKTAE,* SON OF THE
CHINGIZ KHAN.

A tradition to this effect had been handed down from
the ancients—May God reward them !—that, when the

6 Kur’AN: Chap. XLIL., verse 5.

7 Not mentioned under the events of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah’s reign. Khokhars are not Gakhars, I beg leave to say, although the
latter are constantly confounded with them by writers who do not know of the
former. See note at page 484

8 If so, what prevented him from taking possession of Lahor again?

9 The Altan Khan, Shiidai-Shit-o-si— ps 5 5% csogt—the ^" Ninkiassu ” of
some European writers, had withdrawn, as previously narrated under the reign
of the Chingiz Khan, from his capital, Chiing-di, Ching-dii, or Chingti, to
Taiming, or, as the Fanakatt writes it, Tayang-fu, the ‘‘ Pian-kin ” of Europeans,
said to be ‘‘the present Fai-fong-fu ;” and the Mughals had become predominant
over a great part of the territory of Khita, or northern empire of the Kin, a5
they are termed by the Chinese. The other dynasty of the Song, as the
Chinese style them, ruled what the Muhammadan Historians and Hindis call
Maha-Chin, or Southern China. See note on the Kara-Khitia-is, page 912,
and what our author states respecting the fall of the Altan Khans at pages 963
to 966, which differs considerably

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1137

outbreak of the Turks should arise, and the narrow-eyed
should seize upon the universe, and they should devastate

This was but a very partial conquest however on the part of the Mughals,
for, during the absence of the Chingiz Khan in Maward-un-Nahr and Madin-
un-Nahr, the Mughals had been exceedingly hard pressed, and he hastened
his return on that account. Soon after his death, during the two and a half
years’ interregnum, the Altan Khan’s forces had twice defeated the Mughals
towards the end of 625 H. and in 627 H.

It has been already mentioned in note 5, page 1115, that Tuli, during the
interregnum which arose after his father’s death, and before Uktae was raised
to the throne, despatched troops into the territory of Kolghan or Kolkan,
under the Ni-yin, Iljidae or Ilchikdae [of Hirat atrocities], and that it was
reduced, and a Tingkit Amir left to hold it.

Uktae Ka’an, therefore, as soon as he had settled the government of the
empire, provided for making other conquests in the west, securing what had
already been partially acquired, and prepared for the final conquest of Khitie.
Some writers say he set out in 629 H.—this seems merely to be an error,
which is confirmed by several others, of . J nine for ७५५ seven—but he
set out in Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 627 H. [about March, 1230 A.D.], accompanied by
his brother Tili, and some say Chaghatae also went, but this, apparently, is
a mistake—the Rauzat-us-Safa says Kyiik was present as well as Chaghatae.
Having reached the N.W. parts of the Khitae empire, several strong cities,
and a large tract of country were subdued.

These successes, however, were not so great as expected, and, in the autumn
following, Tili Khan, accompanied by the Juzbi, Tukilkii or Tikilkichi, as
it is also written, was despatched with an army, consisting of two tumfns, to
enter Khitae by the southern route through Tibbat, and near the northern
frontier of the empire of Maha-Chin, while Oktie Ka’an took the more direct
route from the spot where he had passed the summer, north of the Great Barrier
or Wall. On his way he had reached the territory of the Holak and Kulfan
[ol 5 59 2J—that is to say, a people whose garments and caps were all red—
and reduced it to subjection. ‘Tili’s force, on the other hand, was nearly
perishing of famine, so that his men were reduced to eating human flesh and
dry grass; and his further progress was stopped until aid was sent him. This
was in 628 H. He subsequently renewed operations, and advanced over
mountains and through plains like the ocean until he reached a city styled
Jajahi Kaskin—[ a3 yeleyeJ—the Rauzat-us-Sata has Sining—ex..—on
the banks of the Kara-Mir-an. After an investment of forty days the city
surrendered, but 12,000 men of the troops stationed there succeeded in getting
on board vessels and escaping down the river, and, on this account, the imha-
bitants were massacred, and their women and children were made captives.
Tuli, after this, proceeded onwards, with the object of reaching the Altan
Khan’s capital, Ching-dii or Tayang-fi, when he reached the Kahlukah [क]
or Pass called Kongkahan [७५०६-5], which was a most difficult Pass, between
two lofty mountains, and the only route in that direction. Tali was in hopes
of finding it open, but he beheld it occupied by a host of Khita-i troops, under
two generals named Kadae Ranko or Rango and Kamar Takodar or Tagodar,
occupying fortifications within, and drawn up in the plain [without or in
front १]. To enable him to get out of this insurmountable difficulty, and pre-
vent pursuit, tradition says he had recourse to a Kankuli conjurer, who, by

5

1138 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

the countries of ’Ajam and kingdoms of I-ran, whenever
an army of them should reach Lohor, the dominion of that

means of the Yadah-Tash or Rain Stone, mentioned in my account of the
descent of the Turks, raised such a storm of wind, rain, and snow, and thick
mist, that, while its effects completely impeded the Khita-ts, it enabled Tali
and his army, under its cover, to escape without being pursued, with the inten-
tion of pushing northwards, in order to effect a junction with the main army
under Uktae Ka’an. When he reached the banks of the Kara-Mir-an [again?
“The map shows the locality, where the Ifoang-ho, after making a bend of
several hundred miles nearly due S., turns to the E. again, in about Lat. 34°
N., and Long. 110° 21’ E.] he sent out the Ni-yin, Jifan, the Tingkit, the
adopted son of the Chingiz Khan, by some called Jifa Bika Khan, witha
party, along its banks to search for a place practicable for crossing. It so
happened that the river had been greatly flooded some time before, and vast
quantities of stones and sand had been brought down, which had accumulated
at a certain point not far from the place where Tili then was, and had caused
the river to separate into a number of channels, and the water, being thereby
greatly spread out, more than a league in breadth, became much less in depth.
The identical place, after some search, was found, and Tali and his whole
army passed over without much difficulty, The Raugat-us-Safa says no one
had ever crossed the Kard-Miir-an before this occasion—by fording, probably,
he means.

Uktae had received alarming news of Tili’s situation, and was in a state of
great anxiety respecting him. When he arrived, therefore, his delight was
great, and he received him with much affection and great honour. This was
in 628 H., according to Alfi, but the Fanakati says it was in 629 प्र. Some
successes are said to have followed after this, but the Altan Khan’s capital
still remained to be reduced. The Ka’an now determined to return to his own
royal place of residence, the Ulugh Yirat, taking Tili along with him, and to
leave the Juzbi, Tukilkii or Tukilkiie, with several great Amirs, and a nume-
rous army, to remain in Khitde to carry out the conquest of the Altan Khan's
dominions, leisurely and deliberately, and the ’Aziz, Yalwaj, was left to
administer the civil and revenue affairs of the conquered territory, and such as
might be subdued. Til! asked permission to be allowed to return in advance,
which was granted ; but the Ka’an passed the following hot season at a place
in Khitae, which is known as Alta-kara, and only reached the Ulugh Yirat
in the beginning of the following winter [628—629 H.]. Tili died on the
way homewards. This was the same year that Jiirmaghiin crossed the
Amiiah.

In the following year, the Juzbi, Tikilki, fought a great battle with the
Khita-is, before the capital of the Altan Khan, and, after making great efforts
to overcome them, was totally defeated and routed, and had to fall back some
distance. He despatched swift messengers, and asked for aid from the
Ka’an, who directed that a large army should forthwith march to his assistance;
and, as there was enmity of long standing between the sovereign of Mahia-
Chin and the Altan Khan of Khitde, Uktae Ka’an sent to ask the former to
join him in attacking the Khita-is at this juncture, and to send his troops
to operate from the south, while the Mughals, from the opposite direction,
should again march on Tamking [es], the Taiming of others. The
Badshah of Maha-Chin agrecd to this, and despatched an army for the णः

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1139

race would begin to decline, and the power of the infidels
to diminish.

pose. Such being the case, when the reinforcements despatched by the
Ka’an joined him, the Juzbi, Tukilki, was enabled to resume the offensive ;
and the Khita-is, having been beaten in the open field, took shelter within
the walls of the capital, which was soon after closely invested, by the
Mughals on one side, and the Maha-Chinis on the other.

For some time the Khita-f commanders concealed the position of affairs
from the Altan Khan; but, at length, the true state of the case having
reached him through some of the ladies of his Aavam, 35 it appeared certain
that the place must soon fall, he determined to go out on the walls and see for
himself. He found that the report was too true, and-resolved to fly; and,
having embarked, with his wives and other females of his family, his personal
attendants and household slaves, on board vessels, by means of the canal
which had been cut from the Kara-Miir-an, and brought into the midst of the
capital, Tamking, he made his escape. He was again pursued by the Mughals,
upon which he fled to another city, and was again followed. At length he
reached a third city, but the Mughals, like fate, still pursued him. At last,
when they had succeeded in investing the third city, which is called एग
—g,—in the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gifr, and had set it on fire on all sides, the
Altan Khan summoned his chief men around him, and, telling them that he
could not bear the idea of falling into the hands of the enemy, placed the
diadem on the brow of one of his Korghis, or guards, caused him to don
the royal robes, and seated him in his own seat upon the throne. He then
went out from among them, and hung himself to a tree. He was found in
this position, taken down, and buried.

There is considerable discrepancy respecting the fate of the last Altan Khan.
Some say that he donned the dress of an ascetic, and was never heard of more ;
others again assert, that, when the city of Baltie was taken, he fled and disap-
peared ; and some say that he fled to a fortress on the frontiers of his territory,
and, having caused a funeral pyre to be prepared, when the Mughals attacked
the place, mounted it with his wife and child, fired it, and perished. The
Khita-is, however, affirm that, when the Mughals set fire to the city of Baltde in
all directions, the Altan Khan perished in the flames; but the previous state-
ment is notorious that he hung himself to a tree, and, two days after he left
the Korchi disguised in his robes, the Mughals captured the city. This event
happened in Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the fifth month of 631 H., about March, 1233
A.D. Thus fell the empire of the Altin Khans, and thus perished the last
ruler of the thirty-six dynasties which had reigned over Khitae.

From the time of the investment of his capital, and his flight from city to
city, two years passed away ; and, after the Altan Khan’s death, the whole of
his dominions, by degrees, were reduced under the sway of the Mughals.

Cktde Ka’an, after reaching his own urd#, on his return from the campaign
in Khitae, founded a 4asr or castellated palace [see note >, page 331, where
kasr is described] near Kara-Kuram, and ‘‘they style it Karshi.” /¢ was not
called «° Ordu Balik,” neither was :¢ ‘‘ the great city,”’ nor ‘‘ a celebrated city,”
nor ‘‘had he fixed his court” there. It was a 4asr [whatever it might subse.
quently have become], and it was surrounded by tents of felt, for the Mughals,
be it remembered, did not dwell in houses. In course of time some of the
Princes and great Amirs began to erect dwellings for themselves; and, as I

1140 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRL

At the time that the writer of these words, Minhaj-i-
Saraj—May God direct him aright!—was about seven

have before mentioned, on the authority of authors who were servants of the
Mughal sovereigns, the Ulugh Yiirat, also styled the Agal Yirat, or original
Yirat of the Chingiz Khan, where he had fixed his dwelling, refers to Kalir-
ain and Kara-Kuram, which, subsequently, became known as the Urdie-Baligh.
Alfi, on the contrary, says it was styled Targhi-Baligh. The latter word is
the same precisely as contained in Bish-Baligh. This sar is said to have
been two leagues distant from Kara-Kuram.

His 4%54/a4 was enclosed on foar sides with a wall or fence of wood and mud
mortar, two days’ journey in length; and there were entrances at various
points. When Uktae was desirous of following the chase, his Towachis were
despatched into the countries within the distance of a month’s journey, to drive
the game before them into this enclosure. After the 220 had hunted the
game, and killed as much as he felt dispused to kill, he would take rest in a
place erected for him within the enclosure. I have already referred to the
I-ghiir country in the note at page 889, as lying between two ranges of moun-
tains, and shown that the 4oA4 or mountain of Karaé-Kuram is in the midst.
It is stated that this place, where the #rd% was, was called Kara-Kuram after
this 4oh.

The felt tents, or portable houses, as they may be called, of the Mughals,
from the Great Khan down to the lowest of his subjects, which were mounted
on carts, appear to have given rise to the idea that the Mughals and other
descendants of Turk dwelt in cities and towns, and that Kara-Kuram was a
` city in its fullest sense. Rubruquis tells us what one of the great srdiés was
like. He was astonished at the sight of Batii’s, the houses or tents [44argahs]
of which appeared like a vast city, and the people were ranging about for
leagues. The Court was always in the middle, and was, therefore, he says,
called ‘‘ curiaorda,” and the houses [Aargahs], when taken off the carts, were
ranged on all sides except the south facing the Court entrance.

The friar also describes Surtak’s urd# as being very great, and says that the
women of his family had each a great house [£4argah] and 200 waggons ; and,
from his description of the first interview with Mangii Ka’an, the Court, so
called, was an extensive range of £4argahs or portable houses, some of large
size, and ornamented within. These, and those of other people of the camp,
were ranged in streets. The probability is, that, in time, as the great camp
near Kara-Kuram was the seat of government, as being near the original yiraf
of the Chingiz Khan, mud walls were thrown up around it for greater comfort
and security,and around the Ka’an’s srd#, and, the camp thus assuming a more
permanent appearance, it was magnified into a city by Polo and others.

Kircher, in after times, writing of the Kal-imak, says, that in certain seasons
they settle on the banks of the rivers with their ‘‘ portable cities.”

It may be mentioned here that the Mughal sovereign, Abiil-Ghazi, Bahadur
Khan, never mentions the words Kara-Kuram in his History, but always refers
to the great y#ratas being at Kara-Kim—, |3—but the probability is that
the 3 is an error for ,

The country all round Kara-Kuram was not sufficiently cultivated to furnish
provisions and drinkables for the Ka’an’s use, and that of his srdd, and 500
cart-loads used to arrive daily from other parts of the empire nearest to it,
particularly from Karad-bagh in Tingkit.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 114!

years old, he used to come to the presence of the eminent
teacher and Imam, ’Ali, the Ghaznawi—on whom be

Under the reign of Mangii Ka’an, according to Chinese accounts, Kara-
Kuram ceased to be the seat of government, and a city was founded, east of
Whan-chew, styled Kay-ping-ft, afterwards qlled Shang-tii. Perhaps this
city has been mixed up with Kara-Kuram.

With respect to the country around Kara-Kuram it is related that, ‘‘on
account of the excessive cold, there used to be no cultivation there whatever
in the olden time ” [at the period when our author wrote]. When Uktie took
up his residence there, people ‘began to erect buildings or dwellings, and to
cultivate. A certain person planted some radishes, and, when they were ready
to be drawn, he brought a few and presented them to the Ka’an, who was
much pleased thereat. He commanded that the leaves should be counted,
and they were found tc number 100: the Ka’an directed that the man should
be presented with 100 <न [of silver?]. When the Ka’an built the €$€
{the same meaning as dasr before referred to] in the vicinity of Kara-Kuram—
the work was carried out by Khita-i workmen—a person planted some
willows and almond trees, but, on account of the extreme cold, trees abso-
lutely would not grow there. These young trees, however, did sprout, and
become green ; and the Ka’an was so pleased—trees never having been seen
there before—that he ordered the person a reward of one dé/ish for every
young tree planted. The absurd idea of “‘ hunting parks,” ‘‘ fish ponds,”
**flower gardens,” ‘‘music halls,” and ‘‘a palace which covered several
square miles of surface,” is merely derived from a misunderstood passage
in the Raugat-ug-Safa, the translator of which made up his want of know-
ledge by adding his own exaggerations out of the mud wall enclosures I have
mentioned.

In the year 633 H., Uktae Ka’an despatched, from the Sabra or Steppe of
Asjink [eile!] or Sajang [eile], his son, Kochi, along with the Shah-
zadah, Kitiki, with an army, towards Maha-Chin, which they also call
Tingndsh [.*&5], which is written in various ways. See note at pages 1086
and 1087. Of the cities of that country they took Sindlim-yii [१८०५०] or
Sindlim-yii [yee] and Karim-yii [१५१], and plundered the country on the
routes bordering on the territory of Tibbat.

The civil and revenue administration of the whole of the conquered parts of
Khitae was in the hands of the ’Aziz and Sahib-i-A’zam, Mabmid, Yalwij,
the Bukhar, while his son, Mas’iid Bak, was in similar charge of all the coun-
tries and territories from Bigh-Baligh and Kara-Khwajah [this is the place
where the Yiddi-Kit of the I-ghiirs slew the Intendant of the Gir Khan.
See note at page 952], that is to say, the territories depending on them, consti-
tuting the country of I-ghiiristan, and the territories of Khutan, Kasbghar,
Almaligh, Kaialigh or Kaiadlik, Samrkand, and Bukhara, as far as the Jihin
or Amiiiah. From Khurasan to the frontiers of Riim and the Diyar-i-Bakr, all
was under the administration of Amir Kirkiiz [after Chin-Timir’s death, as
the Deputy of Tiisal or Usal]; and the revenues of all these countries were
collected by these three persons, and transmitted to the Ka’an’s treasury.

Uktae Ka’an had four Khitiins, and sixty concubines. The Khiatiins were :
॥. BURA KuCHiN, who was his first, and therefore held in great respect.
2. TORA-Kinan, a Uhat—or Urhar, as it is also written—Makrit, said to have
been the widow of Ta-ir Asiin, the head of the Uhats. When he was slain,

1142 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

peace !—for the purpose of acquiring the Kur’an by heart ;
and, from him, he heard the tradition, namely, that “A
number of trustworthy persons have related, on this wise,
from the Imam, Jamal-ud-Din, the Bustaji'—on whom
be peace !—that, whilst he filled the seat in the pulpit
[of the masjid-t-jamr] in the city of Bukhara, during
the reign of Uktae, he would often say in the sermon:
‘Oh God! speedily transport a Mughal army to Lohor
that they may reach it;’” and the sense of this became
manifest when the Mughal army took Lohor in the month
of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the year 639 H. A number of
narrators among the merchants and traders of Khurdsan
and Mawara-un-Nahr [subsequently] stated, that Uktie
died, and was removed from the world, on the second day
after the capture of Lohor.?

she was carried off, and brought to Oktae, who kept her for himself, and mar-
ried her. Previous to this, Ta-ir Asiin had given his daughter, Kilian Khitin,
to the Chingiz Khan. Some say Tira-Kinah was not Ta-ir Asiin’s widow,
but merely one of his tribe. She was not possessed of beauty, but in her
disposition there was greatness and talent for command, and she ruled for
some time after Uktae’s death ; but, through not respecting the precepts of
the Chingiz Khan, she caused sedition and discord among his descendants, as
will be mentioned farther on. She was the mother of five out of Uktie’s
seven sons —Kyik, Kiitan, also called Kita Mangii, Kochi, or Kochie, Kara-
char, and Kashi, so called because Kashi or Kishin, ^" subsequently,” it is
said, ‘‘ styled Tingkit,” was subdued at the time of his birth, 3. MOKA
or MOKAE, of the Katrin [७] tribe [‘‘who are neither I-ghiirs nor
Mugbals”’], who, at first, was a wife of his father; and the son married her
after his decease! 4. The fourth wife was named JAJUR, of the Kunckiir-at
tribe.

The other tevo sons of Uktae were by a Kiimai concubine named Arkanah
or Irkanah, or Azkanah or Izkanah—Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur, calls her
Kamish. They were named Kadan Aghil, and Malik.

1 This name is doubtful, but in the best copies it is as above. In others it
15 Bastakhi, Bastaki, Astaji, and Sataki.

3 Our author does not appear to have known, or was not inclined to state,
that Uktde killed himself by drunkenness. All the expostulations of his
friends and confidants were of no avail to break him of his excess, but rather
tended to make him drink the more. At last, his brother, Chaghatie, sent
one of his Amirs, in accord with the Princes of the family of the Chingiz
Khan, under the name of a Shahnah or Intendant, to look after Uktae, who
was now unable to take care of himself ; and he was only permitted to have a
certain quantity of intoxicating liquor by Chaghatae’s command. Uktie, how-
ever, succeeded in making his Intendant his boon companion, who, unable, or
afraid, to allow of his exceeding the ८76८ of cups, permitted him to increase
their 2८ and therefore the Intendant’s continuance with him was useless.
In the thirteenth year of his reign, however, Anikah Bigi, sister of अत्त

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1143

After the death of Uktade, the Mughal tribes drew the
sword upon each other several times, and the accursed
chief men [among them] generally, and for the most part,
went to hell; and division arose among their tribes. The
brother’s sons of the Chingiz Khan, who are the sons of

Kukibf Bigf, Tilf Khan’s chief Khatiin, whom the Chingiz Khan gave [in
marriage] to the Nii-yin, Ghati, or Mirghati, the Ora-it, after his dream
referred to in the account of his wives and concubines, used to come every
year from Khitade to see her sister, and banquets used to be given in her
honour, and the cups to circulate. In the thirteenth year of Uktie’s reign,
according to her usual custom, Antkah [often written Abikah] Bigi arrived,
and the usual entertainments were given, and she, with her son, who held the
high office of Bawarchi—that is to say, a Comptroller of the Royal Kitchen,
and one of the Intendants of the Purveyor’s Department [in India, bawarchi
now signifies a cook], supplied the Ka’an with his favourite beverage, and he
drank deeply. He soon went off to sleep, and never woke again ; consequently,
some of the Amirs and Khitiins began to reproach Anikah Bigi and her son,
and vowed they had administered poison to the Ka’an. The Nii-yin Iljidae
[Ilchikdae, nephew of the Chingiz Khan, of Hirat atrocities], who held the
office of Kokal-tagh, and was an Amir held in great veneration among the
Jalair tribe, when he heard these words, scouted the idea of such a thing, and
said: ‘‘ What insensate words are these? when ye all know to what excess
the Ka’an used to drink, and when ye know, too, that his fate only has over-
taken him. It behoveth that no such words as these should be again
uttered.”

The bones of Uktae Ka’an, and his 4urizk, or Avrik, signifying a place
enclosed and prohibited from access, lie in a mountain range exceedingly lofty,
called Bildan Ka-ir, which is always covered with snow, two days’ journey
from Ardish, and which, in more recent times, they style Yakah Wandir ;
and from those mountains issue the rivers Yasiin Mur-an, Tarkan, and Usin,
which fall into the river of Ardigsh, in the vicinity of which river the Chapar
tribe take up their 41:4/a4s or winter stations.

The author of the ‘‘ Mongols l’roper,” p. 725, quoting some foreign transla-
tion of Persian writers, evidently derived from a source similar to that whence
I draw information, but probably misunderstood in the original, says ‘‘ Abika
had been married to a dyer on the borders of China,” after the Chingiz Khian’s
death—an exceeding high position truly for Uktae’s chief Khatiin to “envy”
because the other ‘‘ had married so well—and went every year wth her son,
who was dressed as a cupbearer, to pay her respects at the court,” etc. The
errors here are plainly disclosed from the above account. The same writer,
quoting some other foreign translation of Persian histories, says, ‘‘ Ogotai
Khan was buried in the va//ey of Kinien, 1, €. another name for the Imperial
cemetery, whose site we have already described sud voce, Fingis Khan ;” but
it so happens that they were totally different places.

Oktae promulgated a code of his own, which, under the name of t#rakh—a
Turkish word signifying, institute, system, code, etc.—was, like the ydsd of his
father, observed among the Mughal people. In 633 H. new regulations were
promulgated respecting taxes on cattle, and on grain for the poor, and other
matters for which I have no space here.

1144 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

U-Tigin,? went to the presence of the Altiin Khan of
Chin ;‘ and Chaghatae, and his sons, commenced acting
in a refractory manner; and a great number were killed
by the hands of each other—God’s curse upon them !

The reign of Uktade, son of the Chingiz Khan, extended
over a period of nine’ years; and, after his decease, for a
period of one year and a half, no one of that cursed seed
ascended the throne.’ It isthe custom among the Mughals
that when a sovereign among them dies another should
not mount the throne for one year and a half; and this
period they call three years—one year and half of days
and one year and half of nights.

When the reign of Uktae came to an end, his wife,
Turakinah Kh§atiin, ruled over the Mughal empire for a
period of four years, and during this time she displayed
woman’s ways, such as proceed from deficiency of intellect,
and excess of sensuality. The Mughal grandees took
cognizance of that conduct, and sought a firm ruler. They
sent Turakinah Khatiin to join Uktae, and raised his son
[Kyuk] to the throne of sovereignty ; but God knows the
truth

IV. CHAGHATAE, SON OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN—MAY GOD'S
CURSE BE UPON HIM!

Chaghatae, the accursed, was the second son of the
Chingiz Khan, the Mughal.’ He was a tyrannical man,

3 Or Utichkin. See page 899. This circumstance is not mentioned by the
Pro-Mughal writers, but there is truth in it, as may be seen from the conduct
of U-Tigin himself. during the troubles which ushered in Kyik’s reign, men-
tioned farther on [in note 7, p. 1149, para. 3]

4 Previously, the Altan Khan is generally styled “fof Tamghaj” by our
author

$ This is incorrect. Oktde Ka’an reigned from the third month of 626 प्र.)
to the sth of the sixtk [Guzidah says Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the 426, and the
Fanikatf says in the year 638 H.] month of 639 H., exactly thirteen years, two
months, and a few days, although authors, in round numbers, say thirteen
years, and some fourteen.

6 Not in our author’ time; but Kaidi, the grandson of Uktie, ruled
nearly fifty years over the territory of Haytal, and Kabul, and some parts of
Hind [east of the Indus—the western parts of the present Panjab], and his
descendants continued to rule therein for a long period after.

7 Chaghatae or Chaghadie—the name is written both ways, but Fagasae is

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1145

cruel, sanguinary, and an evil-doer; and among the
Mughal rulers there was not one who was a greater enemy

as incorrect as it is impossible from the letters in which it is written—_,l%e or
ygltte—the second son of the Chingiz Khan, is said to have been a monarch
of great dignity, pomp, and magnificence, open-hearted, valiant, and hos-
pitable ; and, according to the wishes of his father, did not object to pay
obedience to his younger brother, Uktae, as his sovereign. At the time that
his father divided his empire among his sons, he assigned Tiiran-Zamin, from
the Naem4n country to the banks of the Jihiin to Chaghatie. Another author
describes his territory as including the I-ghiir country and Mawara-un-Nahr,
and part of Madun-un-Nahr, viz., Kaghghar, Khwarazm, Samrkand, Bukhara,
Bada <bshan, Balkh, and Ghaznin, as far as the banks of the Sind or Indus.
His minister and counsellor was his kinsman, the Nii-yin, Karachar, the famous
counsellor and deputy of the Chingiz Khan, and who is constantly mentioned
in connexion with him from his earliest youth onwards. Karachir is also the
ancestor of the Gurgan or Son-in-law, Amir Timiir, and, from the benefit
derived from that veteran statesman’s counsels, Chaghatae Khan became one
of the wisest, manliest, and most energetic rulers of his time.

The capital, or seat of government, of his dominions was Bish-Baligh ; and,
in carrying out the provisions contained in the ydsd or code promulgated by his
father, he passed not over the slightest thing, but carried them qut to the letter,
and hence arose the circumstance related in the anecdote at page 1107. Such
was the efficiency of his administration, that the routes, in every part of his
territory, were safe, and neither guards nor escorts were required.

During the time of their father, the sons of the Chingiz Khan did not get on
well together, as was but too apparent during the investment of Urganj of
Khwiarazm ; but now, through the wise measures of Karachar, Chaghatiae got
on with his younger brother Uktae better than previously. Chaghatie was
passionately fond of the chase, and in following that pastime, and in jollity, he
passed most of his time, while Karachar carried on the government.

During Chaghatie’s reign occurred the outbreak of Mahmiid, the Tarani, so
called from his native place, Taran, a village within three farsaéhs of Bukhara,
who, in 630 H., broke out into rebellion, whereby many thousands of persons
perished.

Among other fictions related by Marco Polo is that respecting ‘‘ Zagatay,”
as he styles Chaghatae, whom he makes to reign about one hundred years
before his own time—1272 A.D. [671 H.]. According to the same traveller’s
statements, ‘‘ Zagatay `` was persuaded to allow himself to be baptized, and the
Christians built a church at Bukhara, whose roof was supported by one pillar,
that stood on a square stone, taken by ‘‘Zagatay’s”’ favour, from a building of
the Mubammadans ! 2

The Mughal dynasty founded at Dihli, by Babar Badghah, is constantly
styled the Chaghatae dynasty, and its Princes, the Chaghatae Princes, but
these designations are not correct ; for the only connexion between Babar and
the descendants of the Chingiz Khan was that his mother was the sister of a
descendant of Chaghatie, the head of that branch of his house ; but this is not
a valid reason for styling the house of Babar, Chaghatdes, but it would be,
and is, correct to style it the Timiiriah dynasty. Although Babar was a
Mughal, both on the father’s and mother’s side, he was himself not much
attached to the Mughals of the Chingiz family.

4 D

v

1146 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of the Musalmans. He used to require that no created
being should, in his presence, take the name of Musalman
on his tongue, except with evil intent; and, throughout
the whole of his tribes [of which he was the head] it used
not to be possible even to slaughter a sheep according
to the ordinances of Islam, and all [sheep] used to be
rendered [thereby] unclean. To say one’s prayers [pub-
licly] used to be impossible for any Musalman. Chaghatae
used constantly to urge upon Uktae that it was necessary
to massacre all Musalmans and not let any of them re-
main ; and no Musalman used to dare to put himself ‘in
his sight.

He was older than Uktae; and, as the Chingiz Khan
was aware that his nature was excessively sanguinary,°
malevolent, and tyrannical, he did not bequeath the sove-
reignty to him, and assigned it to his younger brother,
Uktae. Chaghatade’s place of residence likewise used
to be the original Mughal locality, and that portion of
the dominions of the Chingiz Khan which he held
possession of [at his father’s death] was assigned to him
as his portion. His troops were [located] in different
parts of Mawara-un-Nahr, Farghanah, and Turkistan.
For this reason, that he had impeached the elder of his
brothers, Tiishi, before his father, [asserting] that Tishi,
in his mind, meditated killing the Chingiz Khan in some
chase, when this reached the father’s hearing, the Chingiz
Khan gave poison to his son Tishi, and destroyed him.

This Chaghatae, the accursed, for some years, was at
the head of his tribes and forces; and, when the decree
of his death arrived, Almighty God made -2 holy man
among His eminent saints the instrument of his death so
that he went to hell: and it was on this wise. There was
a pious Darwesh, of pure heart, from the confines of
Khurasan, whom they used to call Shaikh Mahmid-i-
Atash-Kh’ar [the Fire-eater], a Shaikh of much eminence,

The four tribes which are called Chaghataes—that is to say, Chaghatie’s
tribes—have been already mentioned in the note at page 1093, last paragraph.
See also notes at pages 874, 875, and note >, page 1100.

8 More sanguinary than his own? The Pro-Mughal writers say that he was
‘*the light of his father’s eye,” but they, too, do not seem to recollect his
conduct, and that of his other brothers, before the capital of Khwarazm.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1147

and a Darwesh of great repute, who, having cast off
earthly wishes and desires, and, impressed with the aspira-
tion after Truth,’ had devoted his body to pain and afflic-
tion, and had gone out into-the world, and used to
wander about in different countries. He reached, during
his wanderings, a place between two mountains [ranges ?]
through which lay the route between the country of Turkis-
tan and the territory of Chin, and between these two
mountains strong barriers were placed, and guards were
there posted and overseers stationed, in order that they
might examine every person who proceeded towards Chin,
or who entered the territory of Turkistan from Chin, and
have information respecting his condition.’

When Shaikh Mahmid-i-Atash-Kh’ar arrived at that
place, the guards beheld a person, a stranger to the usages
of the world, and, in outward appearance, like a maniac;
and they seized him [saying]: “Thou art a 2272-7.
Shaikh Mahmid replied: “Aye! I am a 1742-7 ;" and,
notwithstanding they importuned him, saying: “ Who art
thou ? Say!” his reply was: “I am what ye have said:
a 2८42-7.“ ° As he had confessed this thing, they brought
him before Chaghatae. Mas’iid Bak, who was the Jumlat-
ul-Mulk [Minister of State*] of Chaghatade, recognized
Shaikh Mahmid, but, through fear of Chaghatide, was
unable to say anything, or mention Shaikh Mahmid’s con-
dition, or his eminence. Chaghatae demanded of Shaikh
Mahmid: “Who art thou?” He replied: “That same
fidé-iT am.” (12112126 said: “ What shall I.do with
thee? What doth it behove to do unto thee?” Shaikh
Mahmiid answered: “Command that they rain arrows
upon me, that I may be freed [from life].” Chaghatae
commanded so that they killed him with volleys of arrowS.

9 See the Introduction to my ^^ POETRY OF THE AFGHANS,” page xi.
London, 1867.

1 This is the Iron Gate Pass, mentioned in the journey of the envoys of
Mirza Shah Rukh Sultan, sent into China in 822 प्त.

3 Fida-i means one who devotes his life as a sacrifice for a special object, or
who consecrates himself to a cause. The Darwesh was right, literally, in
what he said, but they appear to have mistaken him for, or suspected him of
being, a fida-i, or disciple of the chief of the Mulahidah sect.

> Yet Mas’iid Bak must have often come before him in his official capacity,
and he was a Musalman.

4 D2

1148 THE TABAKAT-IL-NASIRL

Some days after Shaikh Mahmid was received into the
Almighty’s mercy, Chaghatae was in the act of dis-
charging a recoiling arrow,‘ in a hunting-ground, at the
prey, when, verily, it entered the back of that accursed
one, and he went to hell; and God’s people, particularly
the people of Islam, were delivered from his malevo-
lence.

ए. KYUK, SON OF UKTAE, SON OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN.

Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that
Uktae had two 5005," one named Kutian, and the other

५ The original is fi~i-ds-gashtak, as literally translated above. What it
may have been I cannot say ; probably some sort of rebounding missile.

I wonder whether this statement was mistaken by other writers, who followed
our author, or whether he, before he wrote this passage, heard some vague or
confused account of the cause of Chaghatde’s death; because it is stated on
very good authority in Alfi, that Hulakii Khan, when he overturned the
Mulahidah dynasty, made over several of the children and kinsmen of Rukn-
ud-Din, Khiir Shah, the last ruler of that dynasty and head of that sect, to
Salghan Khatiin, a daughter of Chaghatde Khan, in order “ that she might
avenge, en them, the blood.of her father, who had been killed by Fida-is.”

I find no particulars respecting Chaghatde’s death, how he died, or what
he died of—save that he died among his own #//7s, and that great mourning was
made for him ; but-our author’s version of his death is evidently fabulous. He
died six months before his brother Uktae, in the month of Zi-Ka’dah, 638 प.
Rauzat-ug-Safa says he died in 640 H.; but this is contrary to the statements
of others, and seems to be a mistake for the date of the Ni-yin: Karachir’s
death, which took place in that year. He was succeeded in his dominions by
his grandson, Kara Hilaki, or Hilakiie, as it is also written, son of Mitikie
{»“5:.], according to the express wish of the Chingiz Khan before his death,
that Kara Hulakii should succeed Chaghatde Khan as head of his ०४८5.

The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir states that, after the death of Chaghatie, and
Oktae Ka’an’s dying very soon after, up to the time of Kyik’s ascending the
throne, some four years intervened ; and, after the ५८2 of Chaghatie had been
for some time without a head, Karachar set up Karaé-Hilakii or Kara Aghil,
as he is also called, but Kyuk, on coming to the throne, deposed him, and set
up another of Chaghatat’s sons, Yassii or Yassiikaée Mungah, instead. Kyiik
observed—and he spoke feelingly, no doubt, since he had himself been nearly
excluded from the throne by a brother’s son—‘* How is it possible, when there
is a son living, that a brother's son can be his grandfather’s heir ?”

० The name is generally written &,5—Kyik—but our author always has
the shortened form—eS The Calcutta Printed Text is invariably incorrect,
and has WS and dS instead. He was styled simply Khan, and not Ka’an
like his father.

6 Oktae had seven sons, of whom Kyiik, the later historians say, was his
eldest son. Our author may have mistaken Kitan for Kyik, for the latter was
subject to some disease from his childhood, though it is not improbable that

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1149

Kyuk; but Kutan, who was the eldest, had become
afflicted with palsy and did not possess eligibility for the
sovereignty, to rule over the empire, and administer its
affairs, and he [therefore] made over the throne to his
brother Kyuk.’

his statement respecting Kiitan is the correct one, for he had been nominated
to succeed Uktae by his grandfather. But the Pro-Mughal historians state
that Uktae had nominated his third son Kochi or Kochiie as his successor,
as will be found detailed below. See next to last para. of note %, page 1142.

7 Kyik, son of Uktiae, at the time of his father’s death, had not yet arrived
from the army then engaged in the campaigns west of Kifchak, from which he
and other Shah-zadahs were returning, as before stated ; and Mika Khatin,
the most beloved of Uktae’s wives, also soon after died. Tiira-Kinah
Khatin—there was no such title as ‘‘empress,” I beg to say, among the
Mughals, nor wil! Khatiin bear any such translation, whatever there might
have been among ‘‘ Mongols ~ mother of the five eldest sons, by her strata-
gems and cunning, and the liberal use of gold, had gained over a party,
including some of the Chingiz Khan’s family, and the Wazirs, to her side ;
and, without consulting the whole of the Shah-zidahs and Amirs, as was
customary, she assumed the direction of affairs. During the reign of the late
Ka’an she was sorely displeased with a number of persons, and now she
resolved to take revenge upon them. She had a Tajzik handmaid, named
Fatimah, who had been made captive at the time of the invasion of Khurasan,
and sent into Mfighalistin by the Amirs after the capture of the Mash-had of
Tus. This damsel was talented, and exceedingly clever and sagacious, and
soon became the trusted servant and confidant of the Khiatiin in all matters.
Amirs and Ministers sought her good offices, even in the Ka’an’s reign, he
being in a state of half inebriety all his time, and ignorant and unfit persons were
often entrusted, through her interest, with offices of which they were wholly
incapable or undeserving.

At this time, these two women, the mistress and handmaid, sought to seize
Chinkde, the Grand Wazir, but he made his escape to the wrdu of Kitan, son
of Uktae. Fatimah bore enmity of old towards Mahmiid, Yalwaj ; and, by
her power, she now caused his removal, and a person named ’Abd-ur-Rahman
was sent to administer the [financial] affairs of Khitae, and endeavours were
made to seize Mahmiid and his servants, but he made his escape to Kiitan’s
urdé also. The son of Mahmiid, Yalwaj, who administered the revenue
affairs of Turkistan [but not the appanage of Chaghatae and his family, which
the Nii-yin, Karachiar, is said to have been in charge of], on becoming aware
of these matters, fled to the Court of Batti Khan. Kara Hiflaki, or Kari
Aghiil, as he is also called, and the Khatins of Chaghatae, Urghanah Khitin,
and others, had despatched Kir-Buka, along with Arghiin Aka, into Khura-
sin, for the purpose of seizing the governor, Amir Kirkiiz, the I-ghir ; and
they put him to death, and Arghiin Aki, the Uir-at, was installed in his piace.

During this period of sedition, the different Shah-zadahs were plotting, and
sent agents into different parts to endeavour to get support in their ambitious
Proceedings ; and, the field being vacant, and Kyiik Khan not yet arrived in
his father’s ura, the Chingiz Khan’s younger brother, the Ni-yin, U-Tigin
[Otichkin, i. e., Younger Brother. Sce page 899], sought to usurp possession
of the throne, and, with a numerous force, set out for the late Ka’an’s urd.

1150 । THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

When Kyuk assumed the sovereignty, all the refractory
Mughals made their obeisance to him ; and he nominated

This movement caused great disquietude in the urdz of Uktie. Turi-
Kinah Khatiin, to gain time, despatched an agent to U-Tigin, telling him that
Kyiik was shortly expected to reach the wrd#, and asking him why he was
coming thither with such a large following, as it was a source of great disquie-
tude. U-Tigin, finding that his design was suspected, became ashamed of
what he had done—perhaps the near approach of Kyitk added to it—and he
pretended that his only object in coming was to offer condolence. At this
juncture he received news that Kyiik had reached the banks of the river I-mal.
On this his repentance became still greater ; and he turned his steps, without
delay, back towards his own urd# again.

In short, for a period of nearly four years, the throne remained vacant, and
the empire was ruled by Tira-Kinah Khatiin, because there was want of
accord in the assembling of a ésrid//ae for the purpose of choosing a sovereign.

Some writers, on the contrary, affirm that Tira-Kinah did consult with the
heads of the family, and the chief men, when she assumed the chief power, in
the same way as the wife of the Chingiz Khan, the mother of Uktie, had done,
ona previous occasion, and such was undoubtedly the custom, as our author.
also states farther on ; and they also say that it was usual for three years to
expire before the ९४2८ was held in order to choose a sovereign from among
the heirs ; and the mother of the eldest son, in the meantime, used to exercise
the supreme authority.

Uktae Ka’an had, during his lifetime, nominated his third’son, Kochi, his
successor, and, after his death, having been greatly attached to him, Uktie
named the latter’s youngest son, Shiramiin, who was a promising and intelli-
gent youth, whom he had brought up in his own haram, as his heir. When
Uktie felt that the hand of death was on him—but another version of his
death has been already recorded ; still, he may have been ill when he over
drank himself the last time—he sent to summon his eldest son, Kyiuk, to him,
in order to assigu the sovereignty to Shiramén in his presence, so that there
might not be any mistake about it, but before he arrived Uktae was dead. At
this time, it is said, after reaching his father’s urd@#, the desire of obtaining the
scvereignty overcame him. At this juncture the different Shah-zidahs, who
had been previously summoned to a 4#riltae, by the late Ka’an, arrived from
different parts, at the place called Kokii or Kok Nawar—the Kokonor of
European translators, who always make Nor of Nawar—and a éuriltde was
held ; and they began to consult on the choice of a successor to the late
Ka’an. Batii Khan, however, who, as the eldest son of Jiiji, eldest son of the
Chingiz Khan, was the head of the family, did not come from the Dasght+
Kifchak, and excused himself on account of illness ; but, according to som
accounts, he nourished displeasure in his heart against Kyik, and did ne
desire to come. It is certain, however, that illness was the cause $ for, about
this time, Batti had been stricken with paralysis. His ‘‘ horses’ feet’ appear to
have been quite well, although his own feet ‘‘ were bad,” but we are told
differently in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” p. 162, whose author appears to hat
taken, or to have ustaken, it from some foreign version of one of thos
‘* muddy streams,” some ‘‘ Persian History.” The original from whence this
statement came, as well as other works, use the words dard-s-pdac—ache 9
pain of the foot—with respect to Bati, in reference to the disease in questio?:

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1151

armies to [march into] the different countries of Chin,
I-ran, Hindistan, Khurasan, and ‘Irak. The Ni-in,

hence the very amusing error. There was nothing the matter with his horses.
Athough unable to be present himself, Batii sent his brothers and sons.

With respect, however, to the summoning of a 4éri/tae by Uktaefor another
purpose, and the members of it consulting on his successor, and naming one,
there is certainly some error in a part of the statement above, because nearly
four years elapsed from the death of Uktde to the accession of Kyi, and the
&sérilide was assembled by direction of Tiira-Kinah Khatiin

Among those who were present on this occasion was Utichkin, or Unchi-
Tigin, or Unji-Tigin, or U-Tigin, for the name is written in these several
ways, youngest brother of the Chingiz Khan, with his eighty sons, and a
yreat number of other persons from all parts, including Amir Arghiin from
Khurasin, the chiefs and rulers of Irak, Agarbaijin, and Khurasan; रणात).
ud-Din, brother [and envoy] of Sultan Kai-Ka-iis, of Rim [The Saljak
Sultan, Kai-Khusrau, in 641 H., had ‘‘submitted to the yoke of the Mughals,
and had agreed to stamp the coin with the name of the Ka’an, to insert
his name in the Khutbah—for an infidel !—to pay tribute at the rate of 1000
dinars daily, and yearly a male and female slave, and a sporting dog.”” See
pages 162—164] ; the two Da’itids, claimants to the sovereignty of Giirjistan ;
the brother of the ruler of Halab; the son of the ruler of the Diyar-i-Bakr,
Sultan Badr-ud-Din, Lili; the ambassador from the Dar-ul-Khilafat [!],
the Kazi-ul-Kuzat, Fakhr-ud-Din ; the ambassadors of the Farang ; the rulers
of Fars and Kirmin ; the Muhtashims, Shihab-ud-Din and Shams-ud-Din, on
the part of ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Mulabidah of Alamit ; the Malik of
the Riis [Russians], who was, however, left to stand outside the great tent ;
and others, all bringing presents and offerings befitting the occasion. About
2000 great éhargahs, or felt tents, used by the Turks, Tattars, and Mughals,
were pitched for their use ; and, on account of the vast number of persons who
had assembled there, no vacant place remained available near the #rd#—which
certainly was neither a ‘‘city” nor a ‘‘town,” but, as its name shows, a
camp—and provisions rose to an excessive price.

After much consultation, it was agreed by a majority in the assembly, that,
as Kitan, son of Uktae, whom the Chingiz Khan had himself nominated to
succeed after his father, was not alive, and his son, Shiramin, who had been
nominated by Uktade, had not yet reached manhood, Kyik, the eldest son of
the late Ka’an, who was conspicuous for his spirit and talent for governing,
should succeed to the sovereignty ; and he was, accordingly, raised to the
throne, which decision was chiefly brought about by the stratagems and efforts
of his mother, Tira-Kinah Khitiin, and her party in the state, in the month
of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 643 H.—September, 1245 A.D. Batii Khan’s objection
was, that Oktde had bequeathed the sovereignty to his grandson, Shiramiin

Kyik, whose constitution, from his childhood, had been weak, was not
desirous of succeeding, but his mother’s exhortations overcame him, and, after
some time, he said : ‘*I will accept the sovereignty on the condition that, after
me, the supreme sovereignty shall continue in my family, and to my descen-
dants, and not to others.” This was agreed to by those present, and कप
was placed on the throne according to the usual ceremonies

Carpini, who describes the s#argahs or pavilions of Kytik Khan and his
mother, which some recent writers wé// turn into cities and palaces, was pre-

1152 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

Mangiitah, who was at the head of the forces of [the
Mughal troops occupying] Tukharistan, Khatlin, and
Ghaznin, was, another time, made leader of an army. He
was an aged man, very tall, with dog-like eyes,’ and one

sent on this oecasion. He says: ‘The emperor seemed then to be about
forty, or forty-five. He was of a middle stature, and behaved witir exceeding
gravity.” He was a very wise Prince, and seldom laughed.”

During the long interregnum, many of the Shah-zadahs had been guilty of
certain ambitious proceedings, misconducting themselves, acting contrary to
the ordinances of the Chingiz Khan, stretching out their hands in acts of
oppression, and gppropriating the property of the state ; and none were free of
these acts but the sons of Tilt Khan. In consequence of this,. Mangji and
Urdah, sons of Tili, were appointed to inquire into these matters. 1 have not
space here for the details, but several persons were put to death in consequence,
among whom were several of the followers of Kyik’s great uncle, U-Tigin, and
Fatimah Khatin, his mother’s favourite handmaid.

After disposing of these matters, Kyiik despatched armies into different
parts of the empire. Siwidie [Sahiidah]}, the Bahadur, and the Ni-yin,
Chaghan, with a force consisting of Karayats, were sent to the frontiers of
Khitae and the territories of Manzi [5+], and the Ni-yin Iljidae or Ilchikdiae,
with a large army, was sent into I-ran-Zamin, with the object of reducing Rim,
Shim, Halab, and Migr under the yoke. [See page 164, where our author
mentions Iljikdae under the name of Aljakta or Iljakta; but he confuses
Mangit Ka’an with Kytk Khan.] ’Abd-ur-Rabmin, who had been sent to
administer the financial affairs—civil affairs were administered according to
the yas颗of Khita by Kyik’s mother, was now removed, and put to death;
the financial administration of the annexed territory of Khita was again con-
firmed to the Sahib, Mahmiid, Yalwaj; that of Turkistan and Mawara-un-
Nahr, in which Chaghatae’s son ruled, was restured to Mas’iid Bak, Mahmiid’s
son ; and the Amir Arghiin Aka was nominated to the direction of the finances
and civil administration of Khurasan, ’Irak, Agarbaijan, Shirwan, Kirman,
Girjistan, and that side of Hindiistan [the Panjab as far as the Biah] under

the Mughal yoke. The Maliks and Amirs from different countries, who had
presented themselves, were made the recipients of the royal favour, and per-
mitted to return ; and, on Rukn-ud-Din of Rim, Kyik bestowed his brother’s
sovereignty [See page 164], but, as numerous complaints had been received
from Jirmaghin from Irak, the Khalifah’s ambassador was dismissed with
admonitions and threats for his sovereign. Da’td, son of Kabar [_,5] Malik,
was made ruler of Giirjistan, and the other claimant was made subordinate to
him.

During the period that Tira-Kinah Khatiin exercised the chief authority,
the Mughal troops had entered the territories of the Diyar-i-Bakr and Harvan,
taken Ramm, and Nardin surrendered. Shihab-ud-Din-i-Ghazf, the Wali
thereof, retired into Misr, and there obtained support, and attained autho-
rity.

In the same year in which Kytk was elevated to the sovereignty, and shortly
after that event, his mother died ; and, during her administration of the affairs
of the empire, in 640 H., the Nii-yin, Karachar, the kinsman [cousin, in fact]
friend, and counsellor of the Chingiz Khan, died.

§ Two of the best copies have red-cyed, and another copy has one-eyed, but

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1153

of the Chingiz Khan’s favourites. On Mangitah’s enter-
ing the land of I-ran, he made Tae-kan of Kunduz, and
Walwalij, his head quarters ; and, in the year 643 H., he
determined upon entering the states of Sind, and, from
that territory, brought an army towards Uchchah and
Multan.

At this period, the throne of Hindiistan was adorned with
the splendour and elegance of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid
hah ; and the city of Lohor had become ruined. Malik
Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh, held [possession of]
Multan ; and Hindt Khan, Mihtar-i-Mubarak, the Khazin
[Treasurer], was ruler and governor of the city and fortress
of Uchchah,’ and he had, on his own part, placed a trusty
person of his own as his Deputy within the fort of Uch-
chah—the Khwajah, Salih, the Kot-wal [Seneschal]

On Mangiitah’s reaching the banks of the river Sind,
with the Mughal army, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the

the majority are as above. ‘‘Sheep-eyed ” is a very common expression, and
“dog-eyed ”? may be used after the same fashion

Tae-kan of Kunduz, or, more correctly, Kuhandujz, also called or known as
Tae-kan of Tukharistan. A few modern copies have ,%b without any points
to the 2 which, in manuscript, might be read in error for Tal-kin—,,'slb—
hence the mistakes which have arisen regarding these two places through
people not knowing the difference. These are places which we shall probably
know better before long. See page 1008.

Mangiitah is the person whom Mr. Dowson, the Editor of ENiot’s MUHAM-
MADAN HISTORIANS, in the extracts from our author’s work therein contained,
and which extracts I have already referred to, straightway turns into Mangz
Khan, without authority, either from our author or any other, for so doing.
At page 344, vol. ii., of that work, he has: “This army was under the com-
mand of the accursed Mankuta (Mangi Khan),” and yet, in a footnote, adds —
var. ““Mankuna.” At page 363, of the same vol., he has again: “In this
year the accursed Mankuti (Mangu Khan), who was one of the generals of the
Mughals,” etc. Mang Ka’an was never south of the Hindti Kush in his life,
but there are some persons who would prevent such errors being spoken about,
much less corrected, for fear of “injuring the susceptibilities” of people, and
would allow them to stand, and continue to mislead !

9 He held it nominally only, and was not present. In the account of this
Malik our author says he was placed in charge of Uchchah and its dependencies
7 Ragiyyat’s reign, and that he returned to the Court when Sultan Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Bahram 39.21, came to the throne, subsequent to which Jalandhar was
assigned to him.

The text is somewhat imperfect here ; and this attempt on Ochchah is
¢vidently the first one, when the Khwajah, Salib, was there, but, at this time,
Mukhlis-ud-Din was the Kotwal-Bak. See pages 810—813

1154 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

Karlugh, abandoned the fortress and city of Multan,' and
embarked on board a vessel, and proceeded to Diwal and
Sindiistan [Sewastan]. Mangitah advanced to the foot of
the walls of the fortress of Uchchah,? invested it, and the
attack commenced; and he destroyed the environs and
neighbourhood round about that city. The people of the
fortress put forth the utmost exertions and diligence, and
used immense endeavours in defending the place, and
despatched great numbers of the Mughals to hell.
Notwithstanding all the efforts the Mughal troops and
the infidel Nii-ins and the Bahddurs were using, the holy-
warriors of the fortress continued to defend the head of
the breach? until one of the famous Bahaddurs of the
Mughals, who had gone away in some direction, when he
returned to Mangitah, began to reproach him, saying:
“What stronghold and fortification is this in the taking of
which thou makest so much delay and hesitation? 1
would take it in a single assault.” The following night
he made preparations, and put a great number of Mughals:
under arms ; and, suddenly and unexpectedly, in the third
watch, which was the time the guards on the walls took
repose,‘ and the men of the fortress had gone to sleep, he
appeared on the top of the breach. The grace of Al-
mighty God was such, however, that the people of the
fortress had mixed up a vast quantity of water and clay
in rear of the breach, and had [thus] prepared a great pit
and deep quagmire,’ more than a spear’s length in depth.

1 If Multin had then a broad river immediately on its west side, as the
river near it flows‘ at this time, he would scarcely have needed to evacnate
Multan, and, probably, would not have done so. At the period in question,
however, no river intervened between the Sind or Indus and Multan, and
Malik Hasan’s retreat might have been cut off. He, consequently, embarked
on the combined rivers Jihlam, Chin-ab, and Rawt, which then ran cast of
Multan, and so, placing a river between himself and the Mughals, was enabled
to get down into Sind without danger or molestation. See page 1119, ad
page 1129, note }. ।

3 Uchchah seems to have generally been the first point of attack by invaders
of India from the west, especially by the Mughals. It was the key and bul-
wark of India at this period, like as Hirat has ever béen that of Khurasan.

४ We must presume that a breach had been already made.

4 The “time of repose for the guards,” etc. ! They must have been very
efficient “ guards,” truly, and must have taken their duty very easily.

3 The “official” Calcutta Printed Text, in every instance, has (19 for (9

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. १155

When that Mughal Bahadur planted his foot within the
breach, under the supposition that it was firm ground, he
fell into the quagmire, and sank in it. The people of the
fortress raised a shout ; and they brought out torches, and
armed themselves, and the Mughals retired.*

The next day they [the Mughals] deputed persons,

6 No details of this kind are to be found in any other writer, and the Pro-
Mughal historians, including the ‘‘great Raschid,” are silent on this subject.
They do not chronicle defeats generally, unless they cannot possibly help it :
victories alone are necessary for their pages.

This is the investment referred to at pages 667 and 809. The question
naturally arises, how it was that Ochchah, and sometimes Multan, was always
the first point of attack by invaders from the north-west, for the Karlfighs and
Mughals attacked Ochchah first, as did Mu’izz-ud-Din, the Ghiri, before
them, and Pir Muhammad, grandson of Timiir, after them. It seems the
more,strange when we look at the map of the Panjab, and notice the present
position of the rivers ; for the invaders all came the same way, through the
Sind-Sagar Do-abah, and with scarcely an exception, from the direction of the
Koh-i-Jiid, immediately south of which lay the great road from Ghaznin into
India.

To attack either Ochchah or Multan at the present day from the west, or
north-west, coming by the same route, what is called the Chin-ab—three of the
five rivers of the Panjab, which join some distance above the latter city, and
whieh is unfordable, would have to be crossed—an impossible matter at any
time without a bridge of boats or inflated skins, or the tedious operation of
ferrying across—while, to attack Ochchah, the Panj-Nad or Panj-Ab—the five
rivers combined—would have to be passed.

Uchchah, from the fresent appearance of the country, could have been
relieved from Dihli without crossing any of the Panjab rivers, but to relieve
Multan the Sutlaj or Ghari must now be crossed. At the same time, an
enemy beaten off from either place, or, in case of an army advancing to the
relief of either from the east, the enemy would stand a chance of being hard
pressed while retreating across the Chin-ab, unless he effected the passage in
good time, and also of being cut off from his line of retreat by the advance of
an army from the east towards Lahor. ।

From the facts mentioned in this History, as well as in others, together with
what is stated by the old Musalman geographers, the traces of the former beds
of four of these five rivers—that is, with the exception of the Jihlam—and also
of the former bed of the Indus, and the traditions current in those parts, it is
evident that very great physical changes have taken place during the 654 years
since this investment of Ucghchah took place ; and, indeed, even during the
last hundred years. From all these facts which I have mentioned, it is
certain that, when this attack upon Uchchah took place, that place lay,
as it had previously lain, on the right or west, not on the east or left, side of
the Panj-Nad. Multan also lay west of the united Jihlam, Chin-ab, and Rawi,
at that period also, for we know, for certain, that those streams passed on the
east side of Multan in those days, and therefore Uchchah and Multan both lay
in the same Do-abah, no river intervening between them. I have prepared a
paper on this special subject, and hope very shortly to see it in print.

7156 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

requesting the defenders to give up the Bahadur who had
been taken prisoner the previous night, in order that the
army might raise the investment and depart. As that
accursed one had gone to hell, and had sunk into the
black water and slimy mud, to give him up was impossi-
ble; so the people of the fortress denied having taken him
prisoner. In short, through the grace of the Most High
God, causes were brought about, by means of which the
Musalmans of Uchchah might continue safe and secure
from the tyrannical hand of the infidel Mughals. One
of those causes was this, that, when the Mughal army
appeared before the fort of Uchchah, the Musalmans of
that fortress sent an account of it to the Court, the capital
city, Dihli—God defend it from calamity !—imploring as-
sistance in repelling them, and Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’id
Shah, animated and inspired, through the efforts and ex-
ertions of Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, assembled the hosts of
Hindiistan, and moved towards the upper provinces for
the purpose of driving off the Mughal invaders. The
writer of these words, Minhaj-i-Saraj, during that holy
expedition against the infidels, was in attendance at the
august stirrup [of the Sultan]. :

When the sublime standards reached the banks of the
river Biah, the army moved along its banks towards
Uchchah,’ as has been previously related and recorded.
On the Mughal forces becoming aware of the advance of
the forces of Islam, and the vanguard of the warriors of
the faith having reached within a short distance of the
territory [of Uchchah and Multan], they did not possess
the power of withstanding them. They retired dis-
appointed from before the fortress of Uchchah, and went
away; and that fortress, through the power ofthe sove-
reign of Islam,® and the Divine aid, remained safe from the
wickedness of those accursed ones. Thanks be unto God,
the Lord of the universe, for the same!

7 This refers to the river when it flowed m its old bed—not as it runs now—
between its west bank and the Rawi, which also fell into the Biah, on the east
side of Multan. Uchchah and Multan lay in the same Do-abah, no river
intervening between them, and no river had to be crossed after passing the
Rawi, or Rawah, as our author calls it.

ॐ Some copies have, ^“ the potency of the army of Islam.”

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1157

ACCOUNT OF A MUSALMAN MIRACLE.

Trustworthy persons have stated on this wise, that, when
Kyuk acquired stability in his sovereignty, and had put
to death his cousins, who were the sons of Chaghatae, and
the Mughal Ni-ins and Bahadurs had submitted to his
authority, he, upon several occasions, despatched immense
armies towards Chin ; and, in that country, victories were
gained. A fraternity of recluses and devotees of the in-
fidels of Chin, and idol-worshippers of Tingit and Tam.
ghaj, whom they style by the name of (पाद्व ° [Tinis],
acquired ascendancy over Kyuk. That faction constantly
used to study persecuting the Musalmans, and were wont
to promote means of afflicting the people of Islam con-
tinually, in order that, mayhap, they might entirely uproot
them, extirpate them completely, and eradicate both name
and sign of the true believers from the pages of that
country.

One of those Tiinian, who had a name and reputation
in Chin and Turkistan, presented himself before Kyuk
and said: “If thou degirest that the sovereignty and throne
of the Mughals should remain unto thee, of two things do
one—either massacre the whole of the Musalm§ans, or put
a stop to their generating and propagating.”' Fora long

9 In some copies of the text Tiiinan, as in Rubruquis, before referred to.
Kyiik was a Christian, and his mother also.

' Our author appears quite demented on this subject. See also in his
account of Chaghatae, which is much the same.

He probably refers here to an event which happened in Mangii Ka’an'’s
reign, in 649 H., or it may be quite a different event. At Bish-Baligh, the
Yiddi-Kit of the I-ghiirs, who was the head of the Idolaters—But-Parastin—
of Khitae, entered into a compact with a number of his religtonists to put all
the Musalmans to death on a Friday—their Sabbath—when they should be
assembled together for prayer in their Jami’ Masjids, so that, throughout all
Khitae [sic in A7SS.], not one should be left alive. It so happened, however,
that, previous to the identical Friday fixed upon for-carrying out this diabolical
plot, a slave among them became a convert to the Musalman faith, and
acquainted the Muhammadans with the whole affair. A number of the chief
men of that faith, taking the slave along with them, hastened to the presence
of Mangu Ka’an, and stated their case. He issued commands that the Yiddi-
Kit should be seized, and brought before him, and inquiry instituted. The
truth of the slave’s account having been proved, the Yiddi-Kit confessed his
guilt. Mangii Ka’an commanded that he should be re-conducted to Bish-
Baligh, and, on a Friday, after the Musalmans had finished their religious

1158 _ THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

time they were wont, in this manner, to importune and
instigate Kyuk to this wickedness, and continued to devise
insidious snares and artifices. On account of the numerous-
ness of the Musalmans in the countries of Chin, Turkistan,
and Tingit, to massacre them would not be feasible, they
therefore [the Tiinis] came to this conclusion that it would
be right that a mandate should be issued by Kyuk, that
all Musalmans should be emasculated and made eunuchs
of, in order that their race might become extinct, and the
empire of the Mughals be safe from their rebellion and
sedition.

When such [like] tyranny and barbarity took root in the
mind of Kyuk, and his decision in this course was come
to, he commanded that a mandate should be issued, to
this effect, throughout all parts of the Mughal dominions,
from the extreme limits of Chin and Turkistan to the
farthest parts of ’Ajam, ’Irak, Rim, and Sham,’ and the
whole of the Mughal rulers, who were located in different
parts, were directed to obey it, and hold it necessary to be
carried out.

On this mandate having been written out, they brought
it to Kyuk, and he impressed it with vermilion, which
[impression], in the Turki language, they call Al-i-
Tamghaj.’ Accordingly he delivered this mandate to
[one of] those Mughal Tinian,‘ saying: “Do ye transmit
this mandate into all parts of the empire, and use the
utmost efforts in so doing.”

services in the Jami’ Masjid, he should be brought out, and, in their presence,
and in the presence of the rest of the people of the city, be torn to pieces, in
order that others might take warning against entertaining such-like futile ideas
as the Yiddi-Kiit had conceived.

2 Over which two latter states their power was but small.

3 Al here signifies a fiery red colour, carnation, vermilion [?], and the com:
pound word -signifies the red or vermilion stamp or signet of the sovereign.
In the Dictionaries, generally, the compound word is written laeJ|—Altamgbi,
instead of » lish)! as above. Tamghi, also written Tamghah, is said, in sach
works, to signify a stamp or brand, but, from the way our author uses these
Turkish words here, with { and long 4 in the first syllable, and j as the final
letter of the last word, it evidently refers to the country of Tamghaj, so often
mentioned ; and the word is also said to be the title of the sovereigns of
Tibbat and Yughma, and would thus signify, literally, the crimson or vermilioa
signet of Tam ghaj, and that is clearly the meaning of the words.

4 In the Printed Calcutta Text this word is invariably turned into Ninian
and Niinan, the difference apparently not being understood.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1159

When that accursed base one, who held that tyrannical
mandate in his hand, was issuing from the place of audi-
ence in great glee and confidence,’ there was a dog which
they used constantly to keep there, and which was wont
to be near the throne, at the sides, and in the precincts of
the dais, and the sovereign’s exclusive seat; and on the
animal’s golden collar, studded with precious stones, was
impressed a brand denoting its being the royal property.
It was a dog, which, in courage and fierceness, greatly
exceeded and far surpassed a thousand roaring lions and
howling tigers [!]. This dog was in Kyuk’s place of audi-
ence, and, like unto a wolf upon a sheep, or fire among wild
rue seeds, it seized hold of that impious Tiin, flung him
to the ground, and then, with its teeth, tore out that base
creature’s genitals from the roots; and, by the Heavenly
power and Divine help, at once, killed him,’ and the im-
precation, according to the /#adis, which Mustafa—on
whom be peace!—had pronounced upon the son of Abi
Lahb: “Q God! let one of thy dogs defile him!” was
fulfilled upon that accursed wretch of a priest. |

Such a miracle as this was vouchsafed in order that,
under the shadow of the protection of the Most High God,
the faith of Islam, the felicity of the Hanafi creed, the
happiness of the Ahmadi belief, the prestige of the fol-
lowers of the orthodox Muhammadi institutes, might con-
tinue safe from the malevolence of these accursed ones.
When Kyuk, the Tiinian, and those present of the Mughals |
and infidels of Chin, beheld such an awful and condign
punishment, they abandoned that vicious meditation, and
withheld the hand of tyranny from off the Musalmans ;
and they tore that Zamghdj [vermilion-sealed document]
to pieces. Praise be unto God for the triumph of Islam
and the overthrow of idolatry !

When a period of one year and a half’ of the reign of
Kyuk had passed away, the decree of death arrived, and
at the board of destiny placed the morsel of death in the

५ The Ro. As. Soc. MS., I. 0. L. AZS. 1952, and the Printed Calcutta
Text, are exceedingly defective here.

५ The Rauzat-us-Saf& states that it was the Christians who did this, and
that it was a Christian whom the dog worried

7 The Pro-Mughal writers say just one year ; some, less than a year.

1160 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

mouth of Kyuk’s existence; and the cause of his death,
likewise, is thus related.

THE DECEASE OF KYUK, THE ACCURSED.

Trustworthy persons related that Kyuk was constantly
being incited by the Tinian fraternity to acts of oppres-
sion towards the Musalmans, and that they used to in-
stigate him to persecute the true believers. There was an
Imam, in that country, one of the theologians of the
Musalmians, adorned with manifold erudition in theological
knowledge, and proficient in the rules and canons of the
ecclesiastical law, and the subtile doctrines of the Truth.
His exterior [mind] being illuminated with the jewel of
knowledge and excellence, and his interior [soul] with the
splendour of the attributes of purity, he had become dis-
tinguished among the followers of the faith of Islam, and
a pole of indication in the orthodox religion of Mustafa—
on whom be peace! His surname was Imam Nir-ud-Din,
the Khwarazmi—the Almighty’s mercy be upon him! A
number of Christian laymen and priests,’ and the fraternity
of idol-worshipping Tinian, made a request to Kyuk,
saying : “ Be pleased to summon that Imam of the Musal-
mans that we may carry on a discussion with him, and
make him prove the superiority of the religion of Mu-
hammad, and his apostle-ship, or otherwise it behoveth
that you should have him put to death.”

In conformity with this request, Kyuk had this godly
Imam brought into his presence, and he, trusting in [the
promise] “and God will protect thee from [wicked] men,”
in the defence of his religion, was strengthening and

8 Kyik Khan, from childhood, had been brought ap in the Christian—
Nasari—faith—respecting which there is no doubt whatever—and was much
attached to it ; and his mother also was of that religion. At this time, from
Sham and Riim, presbyters and monks of that religion turned their faces
towards his Court, and received great consideration from him, and, conse-
quently, the affairs of the Christians prospered. His chief minister, Chinkde,
and the Ata-bak, Kadak, were also Christians. Indeed, during his reign, no
Musalman dared to speak arrogantly to the Christians, while the Fanikati
states that the monks treated the Musalmans with great oppression.

IRRUPTiON OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1161

supporting himself with [the rest of the promise]: “ for
God directeth not the unbelieving people.”® When he
sat down in that assemblage, they asked him: “ What
person was Muhammad? explain.” That godly Imam
answered: ‘‘The last of the prophets, the head of the
apostles, and the messenger of the God of the universe,
whose head is adorned with the diadem of ‘ By thy life
I swear, and his body with the mantle of ‘Have we not
opened ??* Musa was enamoured of his excellence— Make
me, 0 God! one of the people of Muhammad !—and "15
the herald of 115 - mission ‘bringing good tidings of an
apostle, who shall come after me, whose name shall be
Ahmad.’”? That assemblage of infidels said: “He will
be a prophet who will be purely spiritual, and not enter-
tain appetite for women, and not be inclined to it like as
Isa was. Muhammad had nine chambers [women] and a
number of children : How was that?” That godly Imam
replied : “The prophet Da id—on whom be peace !—had
ninety-nine women —‘ This my brother hath ninety and
nine ewes’ ;> and Suliman, the Lord of Potentiality, had
three hundred and sixty women to wife, and a thousand
handmaids.” That assemblage of infidels, by way of
annoying, negation, contention, and obstinacy, denied the
prophet-ship of 0270 and Suliman—on whom be peace!
and said: “ They were kings merely.” +

9 Kur’An, chap. v., verse 71.

+ This is the passage which the Muhammadan theologists contend is proved
by the passage in St. John, xvi. 7, foretelling, as they say, the coming of
Mubammad, who is referred to as the Paraclete, or, as they read it, the Peri-
clyte, or Illustrious. See Kur’AN, chap. Ixi., verse 6.

* Kur’An, chap. xciv., verse I.

3 Kur’An, chap. xxxviii., verse 22. Some authorities translate it with
“lambs ” instead of ewes.

* Rubruquis relates an anecdote something similar to the above, concerning
an event which happened in the following reign. Repairing to the Palace [the
Ka’an’s Khargah] a few days after Ascension Day, 1254 A.D., ‘‘ Aribuga
[Irtuk Bika], near whom sat two Muhammadan lords of the Court, being
apprised of the animosity that reigned between the Christians and the fol-
lowers of Muhammad, asked the monk Sergius [who officiated in a little
Armenian chapel in the srdi], if he was acquainted with the latter? Sergius
answered, ‘1 know they are dogs : why have you them so near you?’ They
called out, ‘Why do you treat us in so injurious a manner, who give you no
cause of offence?’ The monk justified himself by saying he spoke the truth,
adding, ‘ Both you, and your Mubammad, are vile dogs.’ Provoked at such

4E

1162 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.

At length, as the proofs and arguments of these accursed
ones were weak, and destitute of the force of truth, they
drew back the hand of contradiction, and drew the mark of
oppression and outrage upon the pages of the subject, and
made a request to Kyuk, saying: “Say unto the Imam
that, in accordance with the rites and ordinances of the
Muhammadan law, he should perform two genuflexions

language (if such he durst utter), they began to blaspheme Christ ; but Aribuga,
it seems, forbade them, saying, ‘We know that the Messias is God.’ Some
time after, certain Muhammadans, meeting the monk on the road, urged him
to dispute ; and, as they laughed at him, because he could not defend his reli-
gion by reason, he was going to confute them with his whip. These things
coming to the Khan’s [Ka’an’s] ears, he commanded Sergius, and the other
priests, to remove to a greater distance from the Court.”

Rubruquis had, himself, a disputation with a Musalman, as he states, in
Mangi Ka’an’s presence. He says, Mangii sent to acquaint him that, as there
were Christians, Muhammadans, and 7uins at his Court, and each of them
pretended his Law was the best, and his Scriptures truest, he would be glad to
have the matters argued, that he might judge whuse cause was best. On the
day appointed, the parties met before a numerous audience. Three of the
1251115 secretaries, one of each persuasion, were arbitrators.

Rubruquis says he confuted the 7%, who affirmed that ‘‘there was one
supreme deity, and ten or eleven inferior gods ; that none of them was omni-
potent ; that one half of things are good, the other bad; and that the souls of
men passed from one body to another. The good friar also says that the
Musalmans confessed they believed everything contained in the Bible, and
always prayed to God that they might die the death of Christians, but, with
respect to this, we must needs be sceptical.”’

Mangi Ka’an, having been told that Rubruquis had called him a 7uiz or
idolator, sent for him on Whitsun Day, and asked him the question in the
presence of his late 7s adversary. Rubruquis having answered in the nega-
tive, Mangt told him that such had been his opinion all along. He then
declared what his faith was. He said: ‘‘The Mughals believe there is but
one God, and have an upright heart towards Him; that, as He hath given to
the hand many fingers, so He hath infused into the minds of men various
opinions. God hath,” he continued, ‘‘ given the Scriptures to you Christians,
but you observe them not : you find it not there that one of you should revile
another, or that for money a man ought to deviate from justice.” The friar
confessed all this ; but, as he was going to make apology for himself, the
Ka’an replied, that he did not apply what he had said fo 4im, repeating, “ God
has given you the Scriptures, and you keep them not; but He hath given us
soothsayers, whose injunctions we observe, and we live in peace.”

If we are to credit the Armenian monk, Hayton, however, who was related
to the King of Armenia, he, in his Oriental History, says the King sent his
brother to the Ka’an, in 1253 [Rubruquis refers to his having passed him on
his road back], who returned after four years’ stay, and that after that the King
himself went, and found Mangi at Almialigh, where the Ka’an was baptized,
with all his Court, among whom were many of the chief men of the empire.
at the Armenian King’s request.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1163

in prayer, in order that, to us and to thee, in the perform-
ance of this adoration, his unbecoming actions may be
manifested.” Kyuk commanded him, saying: “ Arise,
and perform two genuflexions in prayer, as with the con-
gregation, according to the rites of thy religion.” That
godly Imam—God reward him !—called unto him one of
the Musalmans who was in the vicinity of the place, and
arose, went through the form of pronouncing the call to
prayer, and genuflexions, in accordance with the orthodox
Sunni rule, and standing up, Khalil-like,’ repeating, from
his heart and mind, the verse: “ Verily I have turned my
face unto Him who hath created heaven and earth, being
a true believer, and not one of the polytheists,”* began
pronouncing “God is great.” Then he commenced the
form of prayer, and went through, as prescribed and en-
joined, with due pause and ceremony, the standing, sitting, `
bowing, and prostration.

When, in the act of prostration, he placed his forehead
to the ground, some individuals among the infidels, whom
Kyuk had introduced and prompted, greatly annoyed that
godly Imam, and the other Musalman who had followed
him [in the prayers], knocked their heads with force
against the ground, and committed other unbecoming
actions towards them, in order that, thereby, the prayers
might perhaps be rendered ineffectual. But that godly
Imam and holy sage continued to bear the whole of this
annoyance and tyranny, performed all the required forms
and ceremonies, and made no mistake whatever, and the
prayers were in no way rendered ineffectual. Having de-
livered the salutation, he raised his face upwards towards
the heavens, observed the form of “Invoke your Lord in
humility and secresy,” arose, with permission, and returned
to his dwelling again. Almighty God of His perfect
power and foe-consuming vengeance, that same night
inflicted a disease upon Kyuk which, with the knife of
death, severed the artery of his existence, so that verily
that same night he went to hell, and the Musalmans were
delivered from his tyranny and oppression.’

$ Like Ibrahim. Khalil ’Ullah—the Friend of God—is one of his titles.

¢ Kur’AN, chap. vi., verse 79.

7 Having arranged the affairs of the empire to his satisfaction, Kyiik resolved

4E2

1164 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

When the sons of Kyuk beheld that awful vengeance,
the next day they asked pardon of that Imam, and sought
his good opinion. May God reward him and all true
believers !

VI. BATU, SON OF TUSHI, SON OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN.

When Tiishi, the eldest son of the Chingiz Khan, as
has been previously stated, was removed from the world’
for conspiring against his father, several sons survived him,
and the eldest of them all was Batt.” The Chingiz Khan

to turn his face towards I-ran-Zamin, and complete the subjugation of the
territories therein. He passed the winter of 643 H.—a.D. 1245-46—at the
seat of sovereignty ; and, when spring came round, with an immense host, he
set out towards I-ran-Zamin. On reaching the limits of Samrkand, a week's
journey from Bigh-Baligh, death suddenly overtook him. The widow of
Tilt Khan, Siir Kikibi Bigi, who cultivated good terms with Bati Khan for
a particular purpose, as will presently appear, suspected this movement on the
part of Kyiik was against Batt, and she sent him information at once.

Fasih-i and some others say that he was stricken with palsy—not gout : Bati
was gouty, however—and that he proceeded towards Samrkand for change of
climate. ।

The Faniakatf says he reigned ‘‘ nearly ४ year,” but does not give the date of
his decease.

Batti Khan and other princes, who were on the way to join him with their
troops, on receiving intimation of Kyik’s death, tured each back from the
point he had reached, and returned to their own s/iéses again.

Kyik is said to have been merciful, liberal, and munificent, like his father,
Uktae.

It is strange that our author, although so detailed in his account of the
oppression of the Musalmans, does not seem to know when and where Kyik
died. :

8 See page 110.

9 On the decease of Jiijf Khan, the Chingiz Khan, his father, despatched
his younger brother, Utichkin, otherwise U-Tigin, to the urd [see note,
page 1101] of Jiiji—some say, into the Dagbt-i-Kifchak—to instal his son,
Bati, or Battie, as it is also written, as successor to the appanage of his late
father. The Bahr-ul-Asrar says, however, that Urdah, Batii’s elder brother,
resigned his right to succeed in favour of Batii, but it is probable that the Chingiz
Khan nominated the one most capable of ruling over the Dasht-i-Kifchak
and its dependencies. Batti and others of the sons of Jiji held territories under
their father; and one of them, the fifth son, Taghae Timir Khan, whose
mother was a Kungkur-at, is said to have had assigned to him the territory of
As and the Meng-Kishlak, or ‘‘The Winter Station of the Meng” | Man-
gishlak of the maps], and the ‘‘uliis-i-Char-ganah,” or four tribes so styled
—the Tarkhin, Cgshiin, Meng, and Cir-at—by his grandfather, and which
Bata, subsequently, confirmed him in. Tiighie Timir’s chief Khatiin was

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1165

installed him in the place of his father, and all the states

Kurak-Lik Bigi, daughter of the Badshah of the Naemans [Kosblik]; and
he was the founder, in time, of a separate dynasty. Bati Khan, with several
of his brothers, set out for the y#rat of the Chingiz Khan, when the news of
his grandfather’s decease reached him, leaving Tighae Timir his representative
in Kifchik, and was present at the installation of Uktae Ka’an.

Tiighie Timir, like his elder brother, Barkah, became a convert to Islim,
and, it is said, Barkah converted him to that faith.

Batii is known by the titl€ of the Sa-in, or Sa-in Khan, which title continued
to be applied to his descendants down to modern times, and even after they
became subject to the ’Ugmanli Turks.

Rubruquis, who had an interview with Bati, says he was seated on a couch
gilt all over, and his wife beside him. He had a fresh, ruddy, complexion,
and, looking earnestly at the party, at length ordered them to speak. Then
their guide bid them kneel on both knees, which they did, and Rubruquis
began to pray for Batii’s conversion, at which he modestly smiled, but the
others present jeered him.

After his return from the campaign in Khitde, as previously mentioned,
Oktae Ka’an held a great 4:ri/tde, in 633 H., at 2 place named Talan Wasir,
at which his sons, kinsmen, and the old Amirs of the Chingiz Khan were pre-
sent. After a month devoted to feasting and jollity, the laws and regulations
of the Chingiz Khan were read out once more; and various rewards were
given. It was then resolved that, as various parts of the empire had not been
completely subjugated, and some were in a disturbed and disaffected state,
each of his sons and kinsmen should be despatched at the head of armies into
different parts, in order to arrange and settle their affairs, while the Ka’an
himself would proceed into the Dasht-i-Kifehik at the head of another army.
Mangi, son of Tili, although young in years at the time, gave very sound
advice on this occasion. He urged that it was not advisable that the Ka’an
should go thither when he had so many sons and kinsmen whom he could send
instead. This was approved by all present ; and arrangements were made in
conformity therewith.

The Shah-zidahs appointed fur this service were Mangi, Tili Khan’s eldest
son, and his brother Biichak [Kubilae is subsequently mentioned as being
present, at least for part of the time, in the Daght-i-Kifchak]; of the
family of Uktde, his eldest son, Kyiik, and his brother, Kadin Aghil, and
Biri, Baidar, and Kolkan, sons of Chaghatae; and among the great Amirs
was the Bahadur, Swidie, also written Swidain [Sahidah]. Having set out
in the spring, in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 633 H. [March, 1235 A.D.], they passed the
hot season of that year by the way, and towards its end—in the latter part of
it—within the confines of Bulghar [Bulghar, its capital, was about fifty miles
from Kasan, and near the river Kama] joined the म of Batti Khan, son
of Jiiji, who had succeeded to his father’s appanage, and he was to hold the
chief command. His brothers, Urdah, Shaiban, and Tingkit, were likewise
directed to proceed from the parts in which they were located, and join him, in
order to accompany him on this expedition, which is famous as the Yirish-i-
lf{aft Salah, or “ Seven Years’ Campaign.”’ They were to invade the territories
of Kifchak [not yet subdued], the Urus [Riis], Billo[Poland ?], Majar [Magyar],
Bashghird, As (Ossetz of Europeans], Sudak [Agdak or Azof], Krim, and
Charkas [the territory of the Cheremis, I believe, not the Circassians], and

1166 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of the tribes of Turkistan, from Khwarazm, Bulghar,

clear them of foreigners and enemies. They penetrated, as will be mentioned
farther on, as far west as Poland and Silesia, as well as Russia.

All things being prepared, Batt Khan, with Shaiban, and Boroldie, with
an army, commenced his march to subdue the Bilo [the Tarikb-i-Jahan-gir
says the Kalar] and the Bashghird ; and, having arrived in those parts, they,
in a short time, subdued those territories, slew a great number of people, and
carried off great booty. The Bilo were a mighty people of Christian faith,
and the frontier of their country was adjoining that of the Farangs. Hearing
of Batti Khan’s advance, they, arrogant because of their grandeur, and the
number of their troops, moved forward to oppose him with an army of 40
tomadns—400,000—composed of chosen warriors, who considered it an eternal
disgrace to fly from the battle-field. Batti Khan detached his Lrother, Shaiban
[the Tarfkh-i-Jahan-gir says Saknak], with 10,000 horse as a vanguard, in
order to reconnoitre the enemy and obtain information as to the number aad
position of their army. In the course of a week he returned, bringing informa-
tion that the Bilan [Poles ?] were, like the Mughals, all able and efficient men,
and ten times more numerous than themselves.

The two armies soon came in sight of each other. They were separated by
a morass—the Fanakati and Alfi say a river or water, but it would seem to
refer to a morass containing a considerable body of water. Batii requested the
Musalmans in his army to assemble together in prayer, and call upon Almighty
God to give them the victory, while he, himself, as was his wont on such occa-
sions, like his grandfather before him, retired to a hill or rising ground ; and,
during a night and day, without speaking word to any one, occupied himself in
prayer and supplication to the Most High to accord the victory to his army.
During the next night he sent Boroldae [the Fanakati says, his brother Shaiban]
and some Anifrs, with their troops, to cross the water during the night, which
they accomplished. Next morning early Batti passed over and attacked the
Bilan in person. By what means he crossed with his army, whether by a bridge
or otherwise, is not stated, but it must have been a hazardous proceeding.
Repeated charges were made upon the enemy, but they, being so strong in
point of numbers, did not move from their position; and Shaiban greatly
distinguished himself, in such wise that his prowess called forth praises from
both sides. The force which, under Boroldae, had passed over during the
night, now attacked the enemy in the rear. The Mughal troups penetrated
into their camp, and began cutting the ropes of the tents. They made
towards the tent of Kalar {_], their Bidshah [Bela IV., king of Hungary of
European writers 7], and cut the ropes with their swords, and overturned it.
Seeing this, his soldiers lost heart, and the main body of the Mughal army
under Batii, having pushed forward at the same time, the Bilan gave way and
took to flight. The Mughals pursued, and made such slaughter among them
५८ 25 cannot be computed.”’

The first place attacked, according to the Fanakati, and the Tarikh-i
Jahan.gir, but which works enter into no details, was the city of Mankas—
-Xe—which, on account of the denseness of the forests among which it lay,
was difficult to approach, even on foot. The trees were, however, felled on
either side, and around it, sufficient to enable four carts to move abreast, which
enabled Bati to invest it. The city was, in due time, captured, and the
inhabitants massacred ; and it is stated that the left ears of all those slain were

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1167

Bartas, Saklab, as far as the boundaries of Rim, came

cut off in order to obtain the number of them, and that the total amounted to
270,000. Its capture, in 636 H., is mentioned farther on.

Such was not unusual, even in comparatively modern times. Gerbillon
[1699] mentions that, in the battle which took place between ‘‘ Bosto or Bos-
tugo Khan, Prince of the Kalmuks,” and ‘‘ Zuzi [Jiji?] Khan” Prince of the
Mughals, the latter were defeated with great slaughter, and that nine camel-
loads of ears and locks of hair were brought to him.

When the spring of the following year came round, Batii Khan, having dis-
posed of the affairs of Kifchak, Riis, and Alan, resolved to turn his arms against
the territory of Kalar —, S—[Bilo of Alfi] and Bashghird or Bashkir.

Wolff, in his History of the Mughals, refers to nine sacks full of ears having
been collected after the battle near Signitz, fought on the 9th April, 1240 A.D.
[15th Ramazan, 638 H.], but this appears much too late a date for the capture
of the city in question, as that took place early in the campaign, in the year
633 H. [1235-36 A.D. ], under which year also it is recorded in Alfi; and, from
what follows, the inhabitants do not appear to have been Christians.

After this victory, the territories previously named are said to have fallen
under the sway of the Mughals, ‘and a portion of Farang likewise.”

This disastrous battle is that which took place, according to Von Hammer,
on the banks of the Sayo, a tributary of the Theiss, in which Bela IV., King
of Hungary, was overthrown in the spring of 1241 A.D., which accords with
the last quarter of 638 H., but Alfi records it under the events of the year 623
of the Rihlat, equivalent to 633 H.; but this can scarcely be correct, for the
other princes only set out to join Bati in that year, and, as it is mentioned soon
after the capture of the city of Mankas, the correct date would be 634 H.,
which commenced on September 3rd, 1236 A.D. In the accounts given by
European writers generally, Batti Khan’s troops are incorrectly styled an army
of °“ Tartars” [there were certainly some Tartars among these forces, as well
as Turks and Tajziks, who were subject to the Mughal yoke], by some called
‘* Thatturi,” and, by others, ‘‘ Mangali,” and these were under the command
of “ Bathus and Peta, sons of Hocotum Cham, son of Genzis Cham”!
० Bathus, with his forces, had ravaged Great Russia, Lithuania, Poland, and
Bohemia. The Cumani, a Sarmatian nation [the Kiimans of Oriental au-
thors], whose territory had been previously ravaged by the Mughal troops,
brought intimation to the king of Hungary of the invasion of the countries of
Ris, Alan, and Kifchak, by the Mughals, and sought permission themselves
to take shelter in Hungary, promising, in return, to turn Christians, and to be
loyal subjects. Permission was granted ; and some 40,000 Kimins, with
their slaves, came into Hungary. The subjects of Bela IV., king of that coun-
try, were disaffected towards him; and, as the advance of Bathus took
place within a year of the Kiimans’ arrival in their country, the Hungarians
accused them of having instigated the Mughals to come, and slew their chief,
and his attendants, on his way to join King Bela. This act caused the

Kimins to join the invaders, who had ravaged Russia and sent part of their
forces into Silesia, Moravia, and Bohemia, while Bathus with an army of
300,000 men was advancing towards the frontiers of Hungary. Meanwhile, King
Bela, with an army nearly as numerous, moved to encounter them ; and, as he
advanced, they retreated leisurely towards Agria, both leaders seeking a favour-
able opportunity to give battle ; but Bela’s troops, as I have said before, were

1168 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

under his sway ; and, in that region, he subjugated all the

disaffected, and rather wished that Bela might be defeated. At length the two
armies drew so near each other that their respective camps were only separated
by a marsh f{this, no doubt, is the river or water of the Musalman writers],
which the Mughals finding passable crossed over by stealth in some places,
and surrounded the camp of the Hungarians. One morning at daybreak the
Mughals began the attack by volleys of arrows. The Hungarians, confounded
at this unexpected attack, could not be persuaded to leave their camp. The
upshot was that they were totally defeated, and the greater number perished :
some say from 100,000 to 65,000 men. Pesth is said to have fallen imme-
diately after.

‘‘The Mughals then proceeded to ravage Upper Hungary, and King Bela
had to fly into Austria. ‘Phen the invaders passed the Danube on the ice,
entered and subdued Strigonia, while detached bands pursued Bela into Dal-
matia. Unable to take him, they turned aside into Croatia, Bosnia, and Bul-
garia, pillaging and destroying. At this time news reached Bathus of the
decease of Hocotam Cham [his father !], on which he set out on his retum
homewards through Cumania and Ruthenia.” This latter is a specimen of
history writing ; [णो Khan, Batii’s father, had been dead ten years before the
campaign began.

Rubruquis, who passed through the Dasht-i-Kifchak about sixteen or seven
teen years after these events, says the whole country between the Danube and
the Atil was possessed by the Koman Kapchak, ‘‘ who are,’’ he says, ‘‘ called
Valani by the Germans, and their country Valania.’’

It will be seen from this that there is some discrepancy between the two
accounts of eastern and western writers, and that the latter have made terrible
havoc with the names, wrongly imagined that Batii was the son of Uktae
Ka’an, instead of being his nephew, and turned all the Mughals into ‘‘ Tattars.”
There is little doubt but that the Kiimans were of Turkish descent, and that,
as before stated, there were some Turks, Tattars, and Tajziks in Bati’s army.
Kadan Aghul, and Malik, sons of Uktae, were bya Kiimin concubine. Other
blunders committed by most European writers are with regard to the dates, and
the supposition that Uktae’s death was the cause of the return of the Mughal
princes and their armies, whereas, as has been, and will be presently, related,
these wars were over, and they returned to their respective territories defore the
death of Uktae, which took place on the 5th day of the sixth month of 639 H.—
जा December, 1241 A.D. ; and yet, according to the European writers, the
battle of Lignitz was only fought in April of that very year, and the ^ Mon-
gols” only crossed the Danube on the ice, after the great battle in which Bela,
king of Hungary, was overthrown, to attack Gran, on the 25th December,
1241, or, according to this theory, twenty days after ‘‘ Hocotam’s”’ death.

After overrunning the country of Bolo [99], the Shah-zadahs, and Amis,
during the [following] winter, assembled on the banks of the river Janan
[५५५] ; and the Bahadur, ऽ १३८ [Sahidah], with a large force, was
despatched into the country of Uris [also styled Riis], and the frontiers of
Bulghar. He penetrated as far as the city of Komak [24,5 ], and overthrew
the armies of that state, after much fighting, and brought it under subjection;
and, the capital thereof having been reduced to wretchedness and desolation,
the Amirs of that place came out, proceeded to the presence of the Shab-
zadahs, and made their submission. They were well treated, received favours

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1169
tribes of Khifchak, Kankuli, Yamak, [bari [Albari],’ Ris,’

1 The tribe to which Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, belonged, and
also Ulugh Khan, and his brother, and cousin. Our author connects them
with the Yamak also. See pages 599, 791, 796, 800, and last page.

2 In some copies written (9 and (~| The tract referred to is Russia in its
restricted signification— Russia Proper. The meaning of Riis is said to be
**fox,’* which, to say the least, is suggestive.

and benefits, and were permitted to return [as vassals of the Mughals]. Again
they became rebellious, and the Shah-zadahs again detached Swidae [Sahiidah].
He soon reduced the disaffected, and put all concerned in the outbreak to
death.

After these events a council was held by the Shah-zadahs, and it was agreed
that each one, with the troops under him, should march towards different
points [where this council was held is not stated], subdue such territories as lay
in his way, and destroy the fortified places. Mangii, accordingly, continued
to advance on the left hand towards Jirkah [See] or Chirkah [So],
keeping along the banks of the Jirkah or Chirkah river, and Bajman [This
name is doubtful. It is written je —Najman, or Bajman—,k¢—Tahmin—
and ,,(4<—without any points. It may also be read Tajman, or it may be Tach-
man, but it seems to be Bajman, from the various modes here given, who was
a great Amir, and redoubtable warrior of the tribe or people of the Aclbarlang
[235] of the peoples of Kifchak, and Kajir Olikah [.54!5| > 4] of the tribe of
As [Ossetz ?], he made prisoners. It happened in this wise. Bajman, with a
body of robbers, who had escaped the sword [probably at the time Kiktae and
Swidae [Sahiidah], at the commencement of Uktae’s reign, moved into those
parts. See note 5, page 1115], having been joined by other fugitives, were
harrying the parts around and carrying off property, and the sedition was
increasing daily. ‘The Mughals were unable to lay hands on this Bajman, and
he used to hide in the vast forests of canes along the banks of the Atil or
Wolga. Mangii caused two hundred vessels to be prepared, on each of which
he embarked 100 Mughals, while Mangi himself, and his brother, Tikal,
moved along down either bank with their forces, [Neither Mangii nor his
brother embarked on board these vessels : they would have defeated their own
object if they had done su.] At last the troops under Mangt reached one of
these forests of canes, and discovered traces of a recent encampment. After
some search, an old woman, who had been left behind because she was sick,
was discovered. On being questioned, she, to save her life, confessed that
Bajman and his followers had recently decamped, and were then lurking ina -
certain island, which she pointed out, with all his property and effects. As
his boats were not there, and he was unable to cross to the island, Mangi sent
messengers to hasten onwards his vessels ; but it so happened that, before the
vessels arrived, a high wind arose, and the waters became so disturbed, and the
waves rose so, that the shallow part which constituted the ford, pointed out by
the old woman, became partially exposed from one side to the other. Mangi
pushed across with his troops and caught एश पात्रा), who requested that Mangi
would put him to death with his own hand, but this he declined, and directed
his brother, Tikal, to cut him in two. On this island Kajir Oliikah, the Amir
of the As, was also slain. Mangii passed part of the summer on this island,
and, when the weather became very hot, he moved into another country.

1170 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Charkas,* and As,‘ as far as the Bahr-i-Zulmat [Sea of

3 The people styled Tschermiss probably, who, in ancient times, dwelt
between the Volga and Tanais or Don.
५ Said to have been a city of Kifchak giving name to a province.

These events are recorded as having taken place in the year 633 H. = Septem-
ber, 1235-36 A.D.

Batti Khan, in the beginning of 634 H.—the latter part of 1236 a.D.—
in concert with his brothers, Urdah, Barkah, and other Shah-zadahs, under-
took an expedition against Tokashi [35] and Barfas, and, after some
delay, subdued their [those ?] territories. Towards the close of this year, the
Shah-zadahs present held a Aviriltae, and it was therein determined to make
war onthe Urus [८1]. Batii, Urdah, Kyitk, Mangi, Kolkan, Kadan, and
Buri, accordingly, invested the city of Arpan, and, after three days, it was
captured by storm, and the city of i-kah [५५1] met the same fate. In the
capture of I-kah, Kolkin [waf the son of the Chingiz Khan, as supposed,
merely because he bore an uncle’s name who died long before, but Chaghatie’s
son] was mortally wounded. One of the Amirs of the Urus, named Armin
[८५५1], also written गात्रा) [७८1] advanced with am army against the
Mughals, and, after many endeavours on his part, he was killed, with the
greater part of his troops. The Mughals now captured the city of Makar [4]
after five days’ investment, and the ruler [Hakim] of the city, who was named
Ula-timiir [,905))!|—Vladimir, son of the Grand Duke George of Russia?],
was likewise killed. The city of Borki-i-Buzurg—Great Borki [Ssr]—was
also invested, and, after eight days, during which its people fought desperately,
it was taken, and fell into Mangii Khan’s hands. In the space of five days,
the Mughals took the city of Karikla [2,35], which is the native country of
the Wazir of Ladin or Lawain. The Amir of that country, Wamkah Porko
[89४49 7], fled, and took shelter ina forest, and after some trouble he was
captured and killed.

After this, the Mughal Shah-zadahs made a retrograde movement [to the

river Don?] and held counsel together respecting their future operations. It
was agreed that they should continue to advance, (न्क by tomdn, to Jirkah
or Chirkah, and capture and destroy every city and town and fortified place
that came in their way. ए, on this occasion, appeared before the city of
Kasal Ankah [41 JSS] and invested it for two months, but could not
succeed in taking it. Subsequently, Kadan, and Biri, arrived with their con-
tingents, and, after three days, it was carried. After this they came toa
pause, and took up their quarters in houses [for the winter 7], and took their
ease.
Towards the close of the year 635 H. [which commenced the end of August,
1237-38 A.D.], Mangii and Kadan marched into the country of the Charkas
{Cheremis of Nichi Novgorod], and, in the midst of winter, entered it. The
Badghah of the Charkas, named Bukan [y%—possibly Yikin— 6}, was
slain, and the country fell into the possession of the Mughals. In this year
likewise, Shaiban, Tikal, and Biri, turned their attention to the country of
Marim [+], and subdued it from Hejakan [»-— perhaps Jejakan— र]
as far as Karar [1].

Barkah, during this year, set out towards Kifchak ; and Uzjak [७५]
Kozan [७15]; Kezan [७5७] and other leaders and their dependants, after

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1170

Darkness—the Arctic Sea ?],* and the whole submitted to
his authority

He was a very sagacious man, and friendly towards the

® A stormy sea is called by this name, in a passage in the Kur’an, but there
can be little doubt as to what sea is alluded to.

great slaughter, were captured, and their country devastated. After this,
Barkah returned to the wrd# of his uncle, Uktae Ka’an, bearing along with
him such a vast amount of spoil as cannot be computed

In the year 636 H.—August, 1239-40 A.D.—Kadan and Buri proceeded
towards the city of Mankas [.»%.] during the height of winter, and took it,
after forty-five days’ investment. In the following year, 637 H.—August,
1239-40 A.D.—Mangii Khan and Kubilde were directed to return from the
Dasht-i-Kifchak, while Batti Khan and his brothers, and Kadan, Biri, and
Bichak, marched to attack the country of Urus [again], and the tribe and sol-
diers of Halahan [८५४ - ९211६ Hala Khan—,,&% by some]. The great city
of the Urus [८] was captured by Mangi in nine days. The Mughals con-
tinued to advance towards the cities of Ula-timir [Vladimr] and Jirkah or
Chirkah, ‘omdn by toman, taking and destroying all the fortified places they
met with in their route. During this expedition, after three days, the city of
Och-Ughiil Uladmir [9०991 09९1 ¢-9!] was taken, which evidently refers to
the city of Kief.

‘* The Russians,” according to the =^" Modern Universal History,” quoting
Petreius, par. ii., were reduced to a most deplorable situation, perpetually dis-
tressed by their own sovereigns, harassed by their neighbours, and exposed to
all the calamities of war; when, to complete their misery, the Tartars
[Mughals ?], still greater savages than themselves, poured in upon them with
irresistible fury, and actually made a conquest of their country. History does
not inform us of the particulars of this remarkable event, any farther than that
innumerable multitudes of those barbarians, headed by their khan Sats or
Battus, after ravaging great part of Poland and Silesia, broke suddenly into
Russia, and laid waste everything before them, marking their steps with every
act of cruelty. Most of the Russian princes, among whom was the great Duke
George Sevodolitz, were made prisoners, and racked to death ; in short, none
found mercy but those who voluntarily acknowledged the Tartars [Mughals ?]
for their lords. The relentless conqueror imposed upon the Russians every-
thing that is most mortifying in slavery, insisting that they should have no
other princes than such as he approved of [History repeats itself often : this
reads much like part of recent treaties which one power wished to impose upon
the ?Usmanli Turks, and another upon Afghans]; and that they should pay
him a yearly tribute, to be brought by their sovereigns themselves, now his
vassals, on foot, who were to present it humbly to the Tartarian [Mughal ?]
aimbassador on horseback. They were also to prostrate themselves before the
haughty Tartar [Mughal ? ], to offer him milk to drink, and, if any drops of it
fell down, to lick them up—a singular mark of servility, worthy of the bar-
barian who imposed it, and which lasted near two hundred and sixty years.”

A duke or prince of the Riis or Russians attended, as a vassal of the
Mughals, the installation of Kyik Khan, but was compelled to stand outside
the audience tent or khargah. This is confirmed by John de Plano Carpini,
who reached Kyiik’s wvd# in 1246 A.D—644 H.—before Kyiik was elected, and
he found Jeroslaus standing at the coor of the khargah.

1172 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Musalm4ans, and, under his protection, they used to live
contented and happy. In his camp, and among his tribes,
there were masjids with regular congregations, an Imam,
and Mu’azzin, all duly organized ; and, during the period of
his reign, and the term of his life, the territories of Islam
sustained neither harm nor injury by his command, nor
from his dependents nor troops. The Musalmans of Tur-
kistan, under the shadow of his guardianship, enjoyed
great affluence and infinite security.

Out of every country of I-ran which fell under the juris-
diction of the Mughals, he [Batti] had a specified assign-
ment, and his factors were placed over such portions as
had been allotted to him,* and all the Grandees and
Leaders of the Mughal forces were obedient unto द्र,
and used to look upon him in the light of his father
T

When Kyuk departed from the world, all concurred in
the sovereignty of Batu, with the exception of the sons of
Chaghatiae, and made this request to him, that he would
accept the throne of the Mughals, and assume the sove-
reignty,’ in order that all might obey his commands.
Bati did not consent ; and Mangia Khan, son of Tili, son
of the Chingiz Khan, was raised to the sovereignty, as
will, subsequently, be related.

Some among the trustworthy have stated on this wise,
that Bati, privately, and in secret, had become a Musal-
11211, but used not to make it known, and that he reposed
implicit confidence in the people of Islim. For twenty-
eight years, more or less, he ruled over this extent of
country [as previously mentioned], and died.* The mercy

6 As head of the race and family. See page 1177.

7 Not mentioned by any other author, but extremely probable. It is also
stated again at page 1164.

४ So he says respecting Uktae Ka’a

9 After his return from the seven years campaign, by command of his uncle,
Uktae Ka’an, Batti was raised to the sovereignty over all the parts of Kifchak,
and the farther west, including the extensive territories which he had subdued
and made tributary ; and he proceeded to the presence of his uncle, and re-
mained with him some time. He subsequently returned to his own dominions.

In 639 H. he was struck with paralysis, hence his inability to come to the
Urdie Baligh to hold a 4ériltde on the death of (कपा; and, in the yeat
650 H., he died on the banks of the Atil or Wolga, at the age of forty-eight,
having been born in 602 H. There is some discrepancy regarding the date of

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1173

of the Almighty be upon him, if a true believer, and, if an
infidel, may the Almighty lessen his punishment [in hell]!

They buried him in conformity with the Mughal custom;
and among that people it is the usage, when one of them
dies, to prepare a place under ground about the size of a
chamber or hall, in largeness proportionate to the rank
and degree of the accursed one who may have departed
to hell. -They furnish it with a throne and covering for
the ground, and they place there vessels and numerous
effects, together with his arms and weapons, and whatever
may have been his own private property, and some of his
wives, and slaves, male or female, and the person he loved
most above all others. When they have placed that
accursed one upon the throne, they bury his most beloved
along with him in that place. In the night-time the place
is covered up, and horses are driven over it, in such a
manner that not a trace of it remains.’ This custom of
theirs—God curse them ! —is comprehended by all Musal-
mans. Here an astonishing anecdote which the author
has heard is recorded, in order that readers thereof may,
respecting the things of the world to come, increase their
reverence ; but God is all knowing.

AN ASTONISHING ANECDOTE.

An astonishing anecdote, which was heard from the
Kbwajah [opulent merchant], whose word is reliable, whom

his decease. Some say it happened in 645 H., some in 653 H., others in
654 H., and that he was aged forty-seven, and others, again, give 662 H. as
the date ; but, as nearly all agree that he was born in 601 or 602 H., and died
at the age of forty-seven or forty-eight, there is no doubt that 650 H. is the
correct year of his death.

Bati Khan founded the city known as the Sarde, on the Atil or Wolga. He
was succeeded by his son, Surtaik, who will be mentioned farther on.

॥ That quaint old traveller, Sir John Maundeville, had heard a correct ver-
sion of the mode of interment, which he gives in detail, and winds up saying :
८५ Many cause themselves to be interred privately by night, in wild places, and
the grass put again over the pit to grow; or they cover the pit with gravel and
sand, that no man may perceive where the pit is, to the intent that never after
may his friends have mind or remembrance of him.” —£arly Travels in Palese
tine. London: Bohn. ।

Rubruquis states, and quite correctly too, with reference to burials, that, if
the deceased be of the race of the Chingiz Khan, Ars sepulchre ts rarely known.
See note at page 1089, para. 5.

1174 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

they used to style Rashid-ud-Din, the Hakim, a native of
Balkh, is here related, in order that it may be acceptable
to the Sultan of the Sultans of Islam.

This Khwajah, Rashid-ud-Din, the Hakim, had come
into Hindistan from Khurasan, in the year 648 H., for
purposes of trade, and he accompanied the author of this
TABAKAT, Minhaj-i-Saraj, on a journey [from Dihli] to
Multan.’ He related as follows: “One of the Mughal
lords, in the territory of Kara-Kuram,* who possessed
numerous followers and servants and great wealth, [died
and] went to hell. They accordingly caused a place to be
prepared, with the utmost ceremony, for the interment of
that accursed one, and placed with him arms and other
effects, and furniture and utensils in great quantity. A
couch also, adorned and decorated, they had prepared;
and desired to bury, along with him, the most loved of
his people. They consulted together as to whom among
his servants they should inter who would be the one to
whom he was most attached.

“There was ayouth of the confines of Tirmid of Khurasan,'
who, in his childhood, had fallen captive into the hands of
this Mughal gadr* in the beginning of the misfortunes of
Khurasan ; and, when -he reached puberty, and grew into
youth and virility, and attained unto man’s estate, he
turned out exceedingly active, intelligent, expert, and
frugal, in such wise, that everything belonging to that
accursed one, in whole and in part, came under the youth's
disposal ; and, as this Mughal had called him son, on this
account, the whole of the property and effects, and cattle,
and whatever else belonged to him, the youth had taken
under his control. All the servants and followers of that

3 This was on the occasion of our author’s proceeding thither in order to
despatch the slaves to his ‘‘dear sister” in Kurasan. Perhaps they went
along with Rashid-ud-Din’s own 4d/lah ; indeed, it is most probable that they
accompanied it. At page 687, our author says he set out himself in Zi-Hijjah
of 647 H., and returned again to Dihli in Jamfdi-ul-Akhir, 648 प.

3 Ina few copies, ‘‘ the territory of Kara-Kuram of the Mughals,” as though
that was some other Kara-Kuram.

५ The Amiiah being correctly considered as the boundary of Khurasan.

$ An Essay on ‘“‘ Fire-Worship ” in Mughalistan is not required to elucidate
this any more than in Hindistan or Upper India. The signification of this
word, and the way in which it is applied, has been given at page 620.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1175

Mughal were under his orders, so that not one of them,
without the permission of that youth, used to: have the
power of making use of anything belonging to that
accursed one. At this time, all of them [the Mughals],
with one accord, girded up their loins to despatch this
youth, saying: ‘The deceased [Mughal] used not ६९ re-
gard any one more than this youth: it is necessary to
inter him along with him.’ Their object was to destroy
this youth, and take vengeance on him for the sway he
had exercised ; and, in this proceeding, all agreed. The
Musalm4n youth, in this state of affliction, was astounded,
and resigned his heart to death, seeing that he had no
asylum and no succour, save in the Lord, the Helper of
the Helpless. He stretched out the hand of supplication
to the promise of Him, “who hears the distressed when
they pray unto त्रा," ° and performed the ablution of
purification, donned clean clothes, and placed his foot
within that subterranean [chamber].

“When they had covered it up, in a corner of this
chamber, that poor creature turned his face towards the
kiblah, repeated a prayer of two genuflexions, and then
occupied himself in repeating the Musalman creed.
Suddenly, aside of the chamber opened, and two persons,
so majestic and awe-striking that the bile of a hundred
thousand lions, at their aspect, would turn to water,
entered. Each of them bore a fiery javelin, out of which
issued flames of fire, and the flames encircled the couch
of the [dead] Mughal all round; and a small spark from
the fiery sparks [issuing from the flames], about the size of
a needle’s point, fell upon the cheek of that youth, burnt
it, and made it smart. One of these two persons said :
‘There appears to be a Musalman here;’ and the other
turned his face on the youth and asked : ‘ Who art thou ?’
The youth states that he answered: ‘I am a poor and
miserable captive, captured by the hands of that Mughal.’
They demanded: ‘From whence art thou?’’ and I re-
plied : ‘From Tirmid.’ They then struck one side of the
chamber with the heads of their javelins, and it rent

५ Kur’AN, chap. xxvii., verse 63.

7 Strange that these supernatural beings did not know all about him, and
that this never occurred to the narrator.

1176 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

asunder to the extent of about [the size of] a doorway,
and they said: ‘Go out!’ and I placed my foot without,
and I found myself in the Tirmid country.”

“From that place, namely, Kara-Kuram $ of the Mu-
ghals to Tirmid, is a distance of six months’ journey and
more ; and, up to this time, that youth is dwelling upon
his own property and possessions, on the confines of
Tirmid ; and whatever salve he continues to apply to the
hurt occasioned by that spark of fire, it is ineffectual to
heal it, and it continues open to the size of a needle's
point, and to discharge as before.” Glory to Him who
contrives what He pleases!

May Almighty God long preserve the Sultan of the
Sultans of the age, NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, upon
the throne of sovereignty !

VII. MANGU KHAN,® SON OF TOLI KHAN, SON OF THE
CHINGIZ KHAN.

Trustworthy persons have stated that Tili was the

8 Here also, as at the beginning of this anecdote, two of the most modem
copies of the text have Kara-Kiim for Kara-Kuram. See para. 6 of note, page
1140.

9 Like Ukdie or Uktae, Mangii is always styled Ka’an.

Tali, or Tiliie, as the name is also written, had en sons, but the four named
by our author were the most renowned among the Musalmans: (1) Mangu
Khan, (2) Kubilie Khan, (3) Hulakti Khan, and (4) Irtuk Bika.

Our author has not devoted a separate heading to Tili Khan, although he
was as much entitled to it as Uktae, Chaghatie, or Jiiji, but the account of his
life is contained in the reigns of his father and brother Uktde. Tilt was the
youngest son, and most beloved by his father, and, when very young in years,
his father married him to the daughter of the Jankabii, Badae, brother of the
Awang Khin, named Siir Kikibi Bigi, and by that Karayat wife, the chief
of his Khatiins, he had the four sons named above. As his decease, which
took place in 628 H., was a source of grief to Ukta’e Ka’an, care was taken
that the word ‘‘ Tili,” which in their language signifies a mirror, should not
be mentioned, and instead of using the word 4¢/ for mirror, after his decease,
the word g#zgi was had recourse to, bearing the same signification, and it
became common in consequence. Command was also issued that the name
Tuli should not be given to any one again. The Jahan-Ara says that Mangi,
Tili’s son, commanded the use of the word रन्ध.

Uktae, when he used to have recourse to drink, and became inebriated,
would say that he first took to it in order to divert his thoughts from dwelling
on the bereavement he had sustained by the loss of his brother Tali.

The authority from which the author of ५८ Mongols Proper” draws a version
of this little episode, and a very erroneous version, must have been “ ina fix”

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1177

youngest son of the Chingiz Khan; and it was he who
destroyed the cities of Khurasan, as has been previously
recorded respecting him, in the account of the downfall of
the city of Hirat. He had four sons, the eldest being
Mangii Khan, the second, Hula’i, the third, Irtuk Bikah,
and the fourth, Kubla.

When Kyuk went to hell, the sons of (02112६26 de-
manded the sovereignty ; and they, having a great number
of horsemen and dependents, did not consent to the sove-
reignty of Mangi Khan. The beginning of this matter
was in this manner. When Kyuk departed from this
world, all the great chiefs of the Mughal armies turned
their faces towards Bati [son of Tiishi] saying: “It be-
hoveth that thou shouldst be our sovereign, since, of the
race of the Chingiz Khan, there is no one greater than
thou; and the throne and diadem, and the rulership, be-
fitteth thee best.” Batii replied: “I and my brother,
which is Barka, possess [already] so great a sovereignty
and empire in this part," that to rule over it, together with

to translate it, and has consequently made it ridiculous :—‘‘Tului in Mongol
means ‘mirror,’ and the Turkish synonym of the word, viz., guesugu, was
eradicated from the language,” etc. So guezsugu was eradicated so that
* Tului” might be perpetuated !

Tali Khan was known by the titles of the Yakah or the Unique Ni-yin and
the Ulugh or Great Nii-yin, but certainly he was not referred to - at least, by
Mughals—as the ^^ Great Novan.”’

1 Our author forgets to say where. The Dasght-i-Kifchak, and the vast
territories farther west, are referred to. See under the account of एवच page
116

as the death of Kyik Khan, again disorder arose in the affairs of the
empire. The Khiatiin of the late Khan, Okil-Kiimish, or ठ ghil-Kimish, as
the name is also written, according to previous usage, in concert with, and by
the advice of, the ministers and Amfrs present in the great sew#, or yurat,
assumed the direction of affairs. The routes, too, had become closed, as each
of the Shah-zddahs, Nii-yins, and Amirs, with his followers, were on their
way to the urd, but, when they became aware of Kyiik’s decease, they halted
then and there, and delayed in expectation of the accession of a Khan; and
each of the Shah-zadahs was beginning to plot sedition, and stir up dissension,
particularly the sons of Uktae Ka’an, who entertained ideas of their rights to
the succession, after the promise made to Kyiik by those present at his
accession.

Bati Khan, son of Jiji, was the real head of the family of the Chingiz Khan,
and of the Mughal I-mak, was acknowledged as such by the whole family,
and all the different Mughal tribes, and was looked up to and held in great
reverence in consequence. He had, however, in 639 H., been stricken with
paralysis, in one or both legs, which the historians term dard-t-fde, literally

4 F

1178 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
possession of, and sway over, the states of Chin, Turkistan,

signifying, ‘‘pain, ache, or affliction of the foot or leg,’? which some modern
translators interpret as gout ; but gout is temporary, as far as moving about is
concermed, while Batii’s affliction was permanent, and precluded his undertaking
a long journey. He was, consequently, unable to proceed from the Dasht-i-
Khifchak to the ancient wrd# and y#rat of the Chingiz Khan, as was usual on
such occasion, but he sent out envoys, by virtue of his position, to the different
Shah-zadahs, and Amirs, saying: ‘‘ Let each one get ready to come into
Khifohak, so that we may hold a €< of the different brothers, and brothers’
sons, and consult as to whom we shall choose to succeed to the Khan-ship,
since, on account of my paralysis, I am unable to proceed to Kalir-adn, which
is the original y#ra¢ and the seat of sovereignty of the Chingiz Khan.”

The agents of Batii in due course delivered their message, but Kara Aghil,
son of Chaghatie, and the sons of Kyiik, declined to obey, saying: ^ The
ancient y#rat and seat of sovereignty of the Chingiz Khan is U-tak or U-tagh
and Kalir-an, and it is not at all necessary for us to go into Khifchak to holda
9८८4८; * and Kiwajah, the Nii-yin, Karklikir, andthe Nii-yin, Timir, who
were the Amirs of Kara-Kuram, they therefore sent to act as their deputies,
and to sign anything that might be agreed upon among the Shah-zadahs. ऽप
Kikibf Bigf, the mother of Mangii, however, having heard that the sons of
Oktae Ka’an, Chaghatae Khan, and Kyiik Khan, refused to comply with
Batii Khan's request, advised her sons, particularly Mangii, her eldest, to lose
no time in proceeding to the presence of their Aka, and paying homage to
him; and Mangi and his brothers set out without loss of time. Having
reached the Dasht-i+Kifchak, and the presence of Batti Khan, he received
them with great favour, and paid Mangii great attention. Batii stated to the
other Shah-zadahs present at the (८८ then assembled, that he had already
remarked Mangi’s fitness for the Khan-ship, and, besides, reminded them that
he had already experienced the good and evil, the sweet and bitter, of life, and
the affairs of the world, had several times commanded armies, and had been
held in estimation by Uktae Ka’an, the Shah-zadahs and Amirs, and the
soldiery. Bati added : ‘‘ The Ka’an sent him along with me, and my brothers,
Urdah, Shaibin, and Tingkiit, and others of the family of पपु, accompanied
by his brother Korkan [Biichak is mentioned as having gone. Sce note १
page 1164}, and Kyiik, into the territory of Kifchak, and other countries,
where he greatly distinguished himself. After that, when the Ka’an com-
manded that the Shiah-zadahs [that is, other than those of Jiiji’s family, whose
appanage was the territories of Kifchak, and other western countries] should
return, before they reached the Ka’an’s presence he was dead. The Ka’an’s
will was, that Shirdmiin, his grandson, should succeed him, but Tira-Kinah
Kati set aside his commands, and set up her own son, Kyik, in the place
of his father, Uktde. Now it is proper that Manga Khan should succeed, and
he is worthy of succeeding ; and there is none other so fitting and capable of
directing the affairs of the empire and of the army. More than this, Mangi ४
the son of my uncle, Tilie Khan, the youngest son of the Chingiz Khan, and
to whom appertained the charge of the preat y#ra/; and as, according to the
ordinances and usages of the Mughals, the dwelling-place of the father dongs
to. the youngest son, therefore the sovereignty belongs to Mangu.” The others
present acquiesced ; and, the right of Mangii having been determined, Batu
Khan despatched envoys to the Khitins and sons of Uktae, and to अण
Kikibi-Bigi, Mangii’s mother, and the other Sbah-zadahs and great Amir

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1179
and ’Ajam, would be impossible. It will be advisable

of the Dast-i-Rast, and Dast-i-Chap [i.e. who, in the assemblies of the
Chingiz Khan, and his son, Oktae, used to sit on the right and left, and who
belonged to the Hazarah’s of the right and left wings. See note at page 10931,
saying, that ^" by the Shah-zidahs who, with their eyes, had seen the Chingiz
Khan, and who, with their ears, had heard his laws and ordinances, the Shah-
2702115 present in this ९2/24 11 was deemed ‘advisable, on the part of the x/#s,
the army, and the people generally, to raise Mangii to the sovereignty.”

Having thus selected Mangi, एप Khan directed his brothers Ordah,
Shaiban, and Barkde, or Barkah, as he is also called, the Shah-zidahs of the
Dast-i-Rast, the whole family of [पर Kara Hilaki, and others of the sons
of Chaghatae, and the Shah-zidahs of the Kara Bilid [५५ 1], to prepare
a great banquet in honour of the occasion, and to seat Mangii on the
throne, but Mangii made some hesitation [for form’s sake, probably ट], when
his brother, Mikde, or Mika Aghil, got up, and said: ‘‘ Have we not all
stipulated and signed our hands that we would not act contrary to the com-
mand of the $a-in Khin, Batii, how therefore can Mangii hesitate to accede
to his commands, and neglect to give ear to his words?” All present ap-
plauded this speech of Miikie’s, and Mangi therefore signified his willingness.
Then, as was customary, Batti Khan arose, seated Mangii on the throne, and
saluted him as Ka’an, and all present, following his example, did the same.
Bati then held the goblet to him, and, followed by the others, bent the knee
tohim nine times, opened his girdle, doffed his cap, and acknowledged his
fealty to him. । |

It was then determined that a great £77i//dze should be summoned to meet at
Kalir-an to confirm this decision ; and, accordingly, all those who attended
this one departed for their own ydrats, and the accession of Mangii became
noised abroad in all parts. Batii then directed his brothers, Barkie and Buka
Timir—the Fanakati says Urdah and Shaiban also went—to accompany
Mangi, with a large army, to the 4Aargah of Kalir-an [referring to the urd
of the Chingiz Khan], and, in the presence of the Shah-zidahs, to seat him on
the throne there likewise. Mangii’s mother used all her influence, which was
very great, to induce the adverse party to attend; and most of the Shah-
zadahs and others signified their approval of the choice of Mangi, all save a
number of the sons of Uktde and Kyiik, and Yassii-Munga, Kara Aghil, and
Biri, sons of Chaghatde, who were using all sorts of stratagems to prevent the
installation of Mangii, and our author was wrong in supposing that only the sons
of Chaghatde were plotting against him. They despatched an envoy to Bati
Khan, notifying their dissent from the succession of Mangi, and stated that it

been previously determined that the sovereignty should continue in Uktae’s

family, and demanded why, such being the case, he had set up another. Bati
replied that he had done so by virtue of his position as head of the tribes and
family, and because he and others deemed Mangii best fitted to rule a vast
empire ; and that no one else among them was capable of ruling it—a work
which could not be entrusted to boys. He exhorted them to think better of
the matter. |

In this discussion the time prescribed by Bati for the installation of Manzi
on the throne in Kaliir-an passed ; and the next year [647 H.] came round,
and still the affairs of the empire remained without order or splendour. AH
the efforts of Mangi and his mother to propitiate and persuade the hostile
Party were of no avail : the more she and others endeavoured to do so, the

4 ¥ 2

1180 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
that we should raise to the sovereignty Mangi Khan,

more obdurate the others became. This year coming to a close also, Mangii,
in accord with Batii’s brothers, sent envoys to all his kinsmen, requesting them
to assemble in Kaliir-in; and despatched Shalamiin, the Bitik-chi—a writer,
or secretary, from the Turkish o&—to Ughiil Kiimish, the chief Khitin
of Kyik Khan, and her sons, Naki and Khwajah, and another Ritik-chi to
Yassii-Mangi [also written Manga], saying: ‘‘ Most of the members of the
urdu of the Chingiz Khan have here assembled, and the 4yri/tae is entirely
delayed, through your non-attendance, fora longtime. If you are of one mind,
and desire to see the affairs of the empire disposed of, amicably and in accord,
attend ; but, understand, that nothing will be left in abeyance for you any
longer.” They saw there was no help but to appear, and therefore Naki
Aghil set out, and the Ni-yin, Kadak, and several other Amirs of Kyik
Khan, and Yassii Mangi, and Biri, sons of Chazhatae Khan, proceeded from
their urd#s, and went to the presence of Shiramiin, grandson of Uktae, and
all these Shah-zadahs met together at an appointed place. Afterwards,
Khwajah, son of Kyik, joined them; and, under the supposition that the
kuriltae would not, and could not, be held without them, they proceeded very
leisurely. It so happened, however, that Barké Khan had previously written
to his brother, Batii, saying, that it was now two years since the sons of
Uktae, Kyiik, and Chaghatide, had been summoned to attend, and they would
not, and were constantly occupied in their ambitious and seditious designs.
In reply, Batti gave orders, saying: ‘‘ Place ye Mangii on the throne, and, if
they or either of them do anything contrary to the yasdé of the Chingiz Khan,
let their heads pay the forfeit.”

On receipt of this command, Barka and his brother assembled together all
the Shah-zadahs then present in the wrd of Kaliir-an, and the great Amirs,
among whom was Amir Harkaghiin, or Harkasiin, and of the Shah-zadahs of
the Dast-i-Rast, Kara Hula’t [or Hulakii; the name is written both ways,
and both are correct], son of Chaghatae; of Uktde’s sons, Kadan, and
his grandsons, Miingard and others; and the brothers of Mangi, Kubili,
or Kubilae, Hulaki, Mika, and Irtuk Baka. Of the Shah-zadahs of the
Dast-i-Chap, the sons of Jiji Kasar, Nako [?], and Yasii Munga ; Iljidae or
Iichikdae, son of Kajitin, and Majar, son of the Nu-yin, Ulji, the sons of
Mankiti, and a few others of the family of lesser note.

Having chosen a propitious hour, approved by the augurs, they met together,
confirmed the decision of the Aka, Batti Khan, and placed Manga Ki’an upoa
the throne with the usual ceremonials. One of the most auspicious signs of
the glory of his reign, according to the pro-Mughal Historians, was, that for
several days previously, the atmosphere of those parts became so overcast that
the face of the sun was completely hidden, and incessant rain fell ; but it so
happened that, at the very moment chosen by the astrologers for Mangi’s
seating himself on the throne, the world-enlightening luminary burst forth from
his veil of clouds, and filled the universe with his effulgent brightness. ll
present in that great assembly, Shah-zidahs, Amirs, and people, thereupoa
arose, doffed their caps, unloosed their girdles and cast them over their shoal-
ders, and bent the knee nine times. I cannot here enter into farther details,
which are highly interesting: space forbids, It took place at the ancient
ywrat, within the limits of Kara-Kuram, the srdi of Kalir-an, in the year of
the Hog, in the month of Zi-Kadah—the eleventh month—of the year 648 Hs
or February, 1251 4.1).

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1181

son of Tili, the youngest of the Chingiz Khan’s sons, who
was removed from the world in the day-time of youth, and
never enjoyed dominion ; and, whereas, I, Bati, shall place
him on the throne, in reality I shall be the sovereign.”
All ratified this opinion.

When they were about to place Mangii Khan on the
throne, Barka, the Musalman, said: “The empire of the
infidels hath departed, and the dominion of every pagan
monarch who ascends the throne of sovereignty will not
endure. If ye desire that the rule of Mangii shall con-
tinue, and be prolonged, let him pronounce the [Musal-
man] confession of faith, in order that his name may be
inscribed in the register of the Islamis, and then let him
ascend the throne.” This was concurred in, and Mangi
repeated the confession of faith.” Then Barka, taking him

In 649 H., Mangi Ka’an lost his mother, Siir-Kuikibi Bigi, by some written
Sitr-Kikiti Bigi—being, I believe, a mistake of = for + which often occurs
in A7S. She was a Christian, but favoured the Musalmans, and was exceed-
ingly liberal towards them. She gave 1000 ८2/66 of gold for the purpose of
erecting a khankah or monastery over the tomb of the Shaikh, Saif-ud-Din,
the Bakhiirzi, at Bukhara, and ordered villages to be purchased wherewith
she endowed it.

> Previous to Mangii’s having been raised to the throne of sovereignty, and
during the four years his confirmation remained in abeyance, some events of
importance happened in the countries, and to several persons, mentioned by our
author.

In the year 643 प्त. Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr, the Kurat, repeatedly
mentioned by our author, the maternal grandfather of Malik Shams-ud-Din,
Mubammad [who is considered the first of the Kurat dynasty], died at Khie-
sar of Ghiir, a notice of whom will be found farther on.

On the 23rd of Muharram, 644 H., Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, died,
or, rather, was put to death, in prison at Dihli, and was succeeded by his
uncle, Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah, who, soon after, at the advice of his
Hajib, Ghiyas-ud- Din, Balban ‘subsequently raised to the office of Lieutenant
of the kingdom, with the title of Ulugh Khan], advanced towards the Indus
to expel the Mughals from the Sind-Sigar Do-abah, where ihey had estab-
lished themselves after the unsuccessful attempt upon Uchchah mentioned at
page 1154.

In 645 H., the Amir, Arghiin Aka, having obtained the government of I-ran-
Zamin, entered upon his office. He had obtained it, by Kyiik Khin’s com-
mand after the I-ghir Ni-yin, Kurkiiz, had been put to death. Some say
that Tura-Kinah Khatiin, Kyik’s mother, had removed Kirkiiz, and appointed
Arghiin Aka, before Kyik succeeded to the sovereignty, as has been pre-
Viously mentioned, in note 7, page 1149.

? If so, how is it that other Musalman writers do not say so? I fear ‘‘the
wish ” of our author ^ was parent to the thought.”’

Barka Khan had already become a Musalman, because, at the great feast

1182 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

by the arm, seated him on the throne ; and all the Mughal
rulers paid homage unto him, with the exception of the
tribe and dependents and sons of Chaghatde, who began
to act in a contumacious manner, and showed a rebellious
Spirit. They were desirous of acting in 2 perfidious
manner, and of falling unexpectedly upon the camp of
Mangii Khan, to capture him, and put him to death.

They [the sons of Chaghatade] despatched confidential
persons to the presence of Mangii Khan, saying : “ When
thou ascendest the throne we propose to come to thy
presence for the purpose of tendering our’ congratulations
and observing the custom of felicitation.” With this pre-
tence they issued forth from their place of abode, with a
host of horsemen well organized and armed; and their
determination was to make a night attack upon Mangi
Khan, slay him and Bati also, and overcome their ad-
herents, and seize upon the sovereignty: “man_ pro-
poses, but God disposes.” It was the decree of Heaven
that a camel-man, from the camp of Batti and Mangi
Khan, who had lost his camel, set out towards the open
country in search of it, and was roaming about in every
direction, when, suddenly, he fell among the army of the
sons of Chaghatae. On becoming aware of the circum-
stances of this army, to every one who inquired of him to
whose following or retinue he belonged—as the appear-
ance and dialect of the camel-men of the army of Cha-
ghatde’s sons was the same as his own—he made himself
out to be a camel-man of one of their Amirs, until night
came, when, seizing the opportunity, the camel-man got
away from among the forces of the sons of Chaghatae,
and returned to the camp of Batti and Mangia Khan, and
made them acquainted with the matter.‘

held on this occasion, sheep were allowed to be killed for him, according to
the prescribed Musalman usage, which was contrary to that of the Mughals.
Kadain Aghil, and his brother’s son, Malik Aghiil, and Kara-Hiila'i, ten-
dered to the Ka’an their congratulations according to the custom of the
Mughals.

+ While Manga Ka’an, and the Shah-zadahs, or Princes, were € in
these festivities just referred to, and the Badghah was expecting the arrival of
the other Shah-zadahs, who had delayed by the way instead of attending the
kuriltae, as already stated, when no living soul expected that hostility, much
less treachery, would break out in the family of the Chingiz Khan, and at @

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1183
When that information reached the hearing of Mangi

time when all was jubilee, and there was no suspicion of such treachery, and
no precaution taken, Shiramiin, grandson of Uktae, and son of Kochiie, Naka
or Nakiie, son of Kyiik, and Kiniki, son of Karachar, son of Oktiie, com
bined together, and arrived near unto the #rds of Mangi Ka’an. Along with
them were a great number of carts full of arms, and in their hearts they
meditated treachery and perfidy towards Mangfi. It 90 happened, however,
that a kosh-chi—that is to say, a camel-man, whose name was Kashak,
a Kankuli, in the immediate service of the Ka’an—had lost one of his
camels. In search of this animal he was wandering about the apen coun-
try, when, suddenly, he found himself in the midst of an army, and saw a
countless number of casts. As he-proceeded onwards, pretending to take no
notice, he came upon a boy seated before a broken cart. The boy, thinking
he was one of the fullowers of the force, asked him to aid him in mending it.
Kashak dismounted from his horse for the purpose, when, to his great asto-
nishment, instead of drinkables and other necessaries for a banquet, he found
implements of war and arms concealed in the cart, under other things. - He
inquired of the boy: ^" What are these?”’ He replied: ‘‘Only arms, such as
are contained in aj] the other carts ;” and, on further inquiry, Kaghak disce-
vered that this force consisted of the followers of Shiramiin, Nakiie, and othess,
who were proceeding towards the Kia’iin’s urd# to offer their congratulations,
and to hold a banquet. Being aware that banquets were not furnished froma
carts full of arms, nor congratulations offered, he, after helping to mend. the
cart, and obtaining other information, got out of the camp of Shiramiin aed
the other Shah-zadahs, and performed a three days’ journey in one. Without
waiting to ask permission, he rushed into the presence of Mangt Ka’an, and
before all those there assembled cried out: ‘‘ Here are ye all occupied in
amusement and mirth, while foes have arisen against ye, and are close at
hand!” and he related what he had beheld and heard. Mangii would not
believe it; and the Shah-zadahs and Amirs present thought Kashak must be
exaggerating; nevertheless, the Nii-yin, Mingusar, or Mungusar, the prin-
cipal of Mangii’s Nii-yins, was despatched, with 2000 or 3000 horse, to gain
information. When the next morning broke, Miingusar pushed on, at. the
head of 500 chosen horse, nearer to the position where the camp of the rebels
Was situated, and while he was reconnoitring a large body of horsemen were
observed approaching. It was Shiraimiin and his party, issuing from their
camp. Miingusar was soon joined by the Shah-zadah, Mika, and the Girgan,
Jokal, the Karayit, and an additional force despatched by Mangi to his sup-
port, and they completely surrounded Shiramiin, Naki, and Kiniki

The Fanakati says Mangi, on becoming aware of this, despatched the Ni-
yin, Mungusar, with 3000 men, to meet them, and that he met Shiramun at
the head of 500 horse, despatched by the conspirators in advance

The Ni-yin said to him: ‘‘ They say ye are coming with evil designs in your
hearts. If this is not true, pass on without fear or hesitation to the presence ;
otherwise I am directed to arrest thee and take thee prisoner thither.” S)ira-
min denied all evil intentions, and asserted that they were all only attended by
their usual retinues. As the others arrived, they and their followers were dis-
armed, as the party of Shiramiin had been already, and the Princes and their
Amirs were divided into nines—the number venerated by the Mughals—and,
in that manner were allowed to enter the audience-tent or 4+argah ; and, soon
after, the Amirs with them were admitted to make their obeisances. -An

1184 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Khan, after taking ample care and caution, he caused the

entertainment was given, which lasted three days, and nothing whatever was
said to them, nor was a question asked.

On the fourth day, however, command was given that all the followers of
the disaffected Princes and their partisans should depart each to their own
yurats, under pain of death if they should be found to remain after that order.
A body of troops was detailed to guard the disaffected Princes and Amirs, and
Mangi, in concert with his chief Ni-yins, Amirs, and Ministers, on the sixth
day, proceeded to inquire into their conduct. The Ata-Bak of Prince Shiri-
miin was closely questioned about the plot. He at first denied all knowledge
of it ; but, on being bastinadoed, he confessed, and immediately stabbed him-
self ; and Shiramiin also confessed. The seven Ni-yins directed to try the
Princes declared them guilty, and, moreover, the conspirators themselves now
confessed their plot. Mangii is said to have been inclined to pardon them,
but this his Nii-yins and Amirs strongly opposed. He therefore directed that
they should all be imprisoned until he had time to consider what should be
done with them. After a few days, Mangii again summoned his Counsellors,
and asked their advice upon the matter. Some said one thing, some another,
but in such wise as not to satisfy the Ka’an. Then his Wazir, Mabmid, Yal-
waj, related the anecdote respecting Aristotle’s reply to Alexander, about root-
ing up all the old trees in the garden, and replacing them with young scions,
which story has done duty in scores of instances, and is applied by Firishéah,
the Dakhani Historian, tothe Turk chiefs in the Panjab in the reign of Ghiyas-
ud-Din, Balban—the Ulugh Khan of this History, the father-in-law of Nasir-
ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, and his successor on the throne of Dihli.

After hearing the anecdote, Mangii Ka’an understood the necessity there
was for completely crushing this faction, and he gave command for them to be
put to death.

As some of the conspirators had not yet been brought to justice, such as
शित्त Kiimish, the chief Khatiin of Kytk Khan, and Khwajah Aghil, her
son, Mangii Ka’an was not yet safe from their designs, and he _ therefore
despatched troops to compel the disaffected to submit. One army, said to
have contained ten fomdns, probably two, was despatched to the Ulugh Tak and
to Tiilkae and el, , which lie between Bish-Baligh and Kara-Kuram, with
orders to join the Ni-yin Alghi, who was in the district of Kaialik, and
to advance as far as the border of Utrir, and act in concert, and the Ni-yin,
Bika, with two fomdns, was despatched to Kirkir or Kirakir and Kum-Kum-
18६. The Chinese say that, in the year 1250 A.D. [commencing on the 4th of
April, 648 H.], in the year of his accession to the throne, and “ about the same
time,” as he put down the rebellion, ‘‘ Mengko ordered Holitay, one of his
generals, to enter Tibbat, and to put to death all who refused to submit to the
Mughals" [to himself 2}. The Bitik-chi, Shalamiin, was despatched to sum-
mon Ughil Kiimish Khiatiin, and her son, Khwajah. He proposed to put
the envoy to death, but one of his Khatiins persuaded him against committing
such an act, and advised his presenting himself, without delay, in the presence
of the Ka’an. दत्ता Kiimish Khitiin refused to obey the command of
Mangi, and abused and upbraided him before his envoy. Mangii was much
enraged when he heard of it, and commanded that she should be brought, with
hands bound, to his mother’s urd to be tried.

In due time Ughiil Kifmish, the Khatiin of Kyik, and Kadakaj, the Khitin
of Kochiie, son of Uktde, the mother of Shirimiin, and Tikashi, the Khitin

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1185
forces to be got ready, and moved out to meet and engage

of Yassii-Mungi, two sons of the Ni-yin, Ilchikdae, and the Christian, Kadak,
the chief minister of Kyik Khan, among others, were brought in, tried, and
their guilt established. Shirdimiin’s mother and other Khatins were sent to
the urdu of Stir Kikibi Bigf, Mangii’s mother, to be dealt with ; and they were
rolled up in felts, and drowned. The Shah-zadahs, Ni-yfns, and Amfrs, were
beaten on their mouths with stones until they died. That they “were choked
by having earth or stones forced into their mouths,” as we are informed in the
“« Mongols Proper,” is merely a wrong translation from some “‘ muddy stream ”
Persian author [or an incorrect translation from the foreign rendering of the
Persian], in which 3S ७७३ » or,» has been mistaken for + ७७०,

Biri, and some others, were sent to the presence of Batii Khan to be dealt
with, and, their crime having been proved, they too were put todeath. The
Ni-yin, Ighikdae, the destroyer of Hirat, and slayer of its inhabitants, was
likewise seized at Badghais, and subsequently put to death.

No less than seventy-seven or seventy-eight members altogether of the
family of the Chingiz Khan, Ni-yins, and Amirs, perished on this occasion ;
and, in consequence of these executions, enmity arose among 115 members,
which was never afterwards extinguished.

Rubruquis, who reached Mangii’s urd# in January, 1254 A.D.—the last
month of 651 H.—and was present during these executions, says that three
hundred lords, besides ladies, perished. He describes Mang Ka’an as being
of middle stature, flat-nosed, and about forty-five years old. ‘‘Hesat ona
bed [couch], and was clad with a robe of spotted fur, which shined like seal-
skin. His wife [one of his wives], who was a little pretty woman, sat by him ;
and, on another couch near, sat one of his daughters [by his chief Khatin],
named Shirin, grown up, but exceedingly hard favoured, and several little
children; for that being her [Shirin’s] mother’s srd# (a Christian lady whom
the Khan was very fond of), she was mistress of it. On the rath of January,
the Khan’s chief wife Kotola Katen [the name of the Khian’s chief wife was
Kankae Khatiin —,,{&3] attended the Christian chapel with her children.”

Mangii having now put down all sedition, the natural goodness of his heart
disposed him to show kindness to his remaining kinsmen. He directed that
Shiramiin, Naki, and the Ni-yin, Chaghan, should accompany his brother,
Kubilae Khan, into Khits, and Khwajah ^ टता, son of Kyik Khan, received
an appanage in the territory of Salingah, or Salingie, ‘‘ which is near unto
Kara-Kuram ;” and, in the same manner, he assigned appanages to others of
his kinsmen, wherein they might pass their days in affluence.

The loyal Shah-zadahs were now also dismissed to their different urdis, and
also Batti Khan’s brothers, Barkae, and Bikae Timiir, who had rendered such
good service, and had the longest distance to go. They were dismissed with
rich presents, and bore along with them befitting offerings for the Aka, Bati,
the Sa-in Khan. The sons of Kiitan, Kadan [Kadghan 2] Aghil, and Malik
Aghiil, were also rewarded, and allowed to depart to their stations ; and on
Kara-Hilaki, son of Mitiikae, son of Chaghatie. his father’s appanage, which
his uncle, Yassii-Munga, had usurped, was conferred; but when he reached
Alie—,,)\—death overtook him.

Kashak, the kosh-chi, or camel-man, was rewarded, raised to high rank,
and made a Tarkhan. The administration of the revenue affairs of the eastern
part of the empire was conferred upon the Sahib, Mahmiid, Yalwaj, who had,
of old, done such good service, and who had reached Mangii’s srds previous

1186 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the army of the sons of Chaghatde, and repel them.
Before they could reach the camp of Mangii Khan, he,
with his own forces, and the troops of Bati, fell upon that
array, wielded the sword among them, and despatched
about ten thousand Mughals of rank and renown,
leaders of armies [!], to hell ; and extirpated all who be-
longed to the army or were dependents of Chaghatie's
sons ; and set his mind at ease. Mangii Khan now became
firmly established in the sovereignty, and ascended the
throne of Chin and Upper Turkistan, and carried out his
measures so that not a trace of the tribe of Chaghatie
remained upon the face of the earth, with the exception
of one or two of Chaghatae’s sons who proceeded towards
Chin, to the presence of the Altan Khan of Tamghaj.®
Subsequently to that, Mangii Khan despatched forces

to his being raised to the throne. Turkistén and Mawara-un-Nahr were
entrusted to his son, Mas’tid Bak ; and the Amir, Arghiin Aka, who, on account
of the immense distance he had to come, could only reach the Court after the
kitriltae, was confirmed in the administration of the revenue affairs of all the
countries west of the Jibiin, as far as Halab, Arman, and Rim. ’Ali Malik
was sent with him to make a new assessment in the countries of I-ran-Zamin
under the sway of the Mughals. Mangii also resumed all grants not conferred
by the Chingiz Khan, Uktae Ka’an, or Kytk Khan. This was done because
the Shah-zadahs had, for their own purposes, during the long interregnum,
been bestowing fiefs upon their partisans in all directions. Mangii issued wise
regulations on this, and many other subjects, for which I have no space here.
A fresh assessment likewise was made in Khitae, and the only exemptions
from taxation were made in favour of such persons as had been also exempt
during the reigns of the Chingiz Khan and his son, Uktae Ka’an, namely,
Sayyids, Shaikhs, and ’Ulama, of the Musalmians, the priests, monks, and
ascetics, of the Christians, the chief Tiiindn of the Idol-worshippers, and such
persons as, by reason of infirmity, sickness, or old age, were unable to work 5
and all outstanding claims for cesses were likewise remitted.

I must, however, briefly mention one especial good regulation instituted by
Mangii Ka’an. A number of scribes were employed at the Court, conversant
with the Farsi, I-ghiri, Khita-i, Tibbati, Tingkit, and other languages, so
that, whenever they might have occasion to write farmans, they might be able
to do so in the language and character of the particular tribe or people to whom
such farman might be addressed. This contradicts the statement made, on
the authority of Klaproth, quoted in the Feurnal ko. As. Soc., vol v. [new
series], page 33.

It is curious to read of ‘‘ Professor” Tatatonggo, ‘‘ installed by Genghes as
Professor of the Ouigour language and literature ”’"—in the University of U/uga
Yiirat perhaps.

$ The final downfall of the Altan Khans, the Kin of Chinese authors, could
not have occurred as early as Ukdae’s reign from this statement, which the
Pro-Mughal writers do not even hint at.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1187

to the Kuhistan of the Mulahidahs; and, during several
years, the Mughals overran that territory, pitched their
camps therein, and took up their quarters in that country.
The inhabitants of the Kuhistan became thereby reduced
to misery and wretchedness; and the Mughals gained
possession of their fortresses and cities, and demolished
their strongholds, and the Mulahidahs fell. The account
of them is as follows.

ACCOUNT OF THE FALL OF THE MULAHIDAHS—ON THE
WHOLE OF WHOM BE GOD’S CURSE!

The reason for despatching forces into the territory and
against the fortresses of Mulhidistan® was this. At the
outset of the career and time of Hasan-i-Sabbah ’—God’s

6 Not intended to be understood otherwise than as a nick or by-name—
Heretic-land, from Mulhid, heretic, etc.

7 The Printed Text turns this name into é\—sabbagh—which is the
Arabic for a dyer !

It is very amusing to notice the errors made with regard to the name of this
person, and the plunges made respecting it; and it is surely time such errors
should be corrected. The latest notice of this kind occurs in a book
lately published, by Major R. D. Osborn, of the Bengal S. C., entitled
‘* Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,” in which we are told [p. 345] that the
‘‘ first Grand Master of the Assassins” was (^ Hasan 24m [i.e., son of, when, at
the same time, his father’s name is ’Ali] Saba,” but, afterwards, a little farther
on, he is styled ‘‘ Hasan Saba” only. The author of the above work, how-
ever, merely follows in the beaten road of others who cannot read the original
histories for themselves, and have to depend on translations often incorrect,
and who call him by such incorrect names—it is merely error stereotyped, so
to say— such as ‘‘the old man of the mountain ” for example, another gross
error. Yet such is the force of habit that there are editors of periodicals and
reviews who, if they saw an attempt to correct such blunders, would probably
say, “in the case of a journal intended for general readers, we are more or less
forced to adopt the usual conventional spelling, partly because readers like it,
and partly to secure uniformity,” while others would consider the correction of
such errors ‘‘ want of taste,” and ‘‘ very offensive.”

The first 2227, the literal meaning of which is an apostle or missionary, one
who invites or stimulates others—of the Isma’ilis or Mulahidahs of Alamit
was ’Ala-ud-Din, Hasan, son of Ali, son of Muhammad, son of Ja’far, son
of Husain, son of Muhammad, who claimed descent from Us-Sabbab Al-
Hamairi, mentioned at page 7 of this Translation ; but by some he is con-
sidered to be descended from Isma’il, son of Ja’far-us-Sadik.

By ’Arab writers he was styled the Shaikh-ul-Jibal—Jle! ..2-which some
one, long ago, probably, translated without recollecting, of without know-
ing, that Shaikh has other meanings besides ‘‘ an old or venerable old man,”

1188 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

curse upon him !—who instituted the rules of the Mula-
hidah sect, and founded the canons of that heresy, he
restored and strengthened the fortresses of Alamit which
he purchased, along with the fortress of Lanbah-Sar, which
was [afterwards became, and was at this time] the capital °
of the chief Mulhid [heretic], whom that sect used to

and that 7ida/ is the plural of yaéa/, ‘‘a mountain,” and at once jumped at the
conclusion that his title was the “ Old Man of the Mountain,” more especially
as his stronghold was on a mountain likewise, and so he has continued to be
wrongly styled ‘‘ The Old Man of the Mountain ” down to the present day.

The terms Shaikh-ul-Jibal, however, signify, the Patriarch, Prelate, High-
Priest, etc., of, or dwelling in, the tract of country south of the Caspian, called
Jibal, the Mountains of Dilam in the MASALIK WA MAMALIK, and also
Kohistan, consisting of a belt of mountains running along the frontiers of
Gilan, Mazandaran, and ‘Irak-i-’-Ajam—ancient Parthia. it was from this
tract known as ‘‘the Jibal,” that Hasan-i-Sabbah, the first Shaixh of the
eastern Isma’ilis or Mulahidahs, received the name, because, in this tract, he
began his mission.

There is a Jibal of Ghiir also, mentioned at pages 335 and 338, but that is a
mere local name, while ‘‘ the Jibal” referred to is well known, and is called by
hat name.

8 Thus stated in the text, but Alamiit was the capital of the Mulahidahs,
during the greater part of their rule, and hence they are sometimes styled
Alamitis.

A pretty jumble has been made, too, of the name of this well-known place,
in every copy of the text collated—but some other works are almost as bad—
through the carelessness or ignorance of the copyists. What European writers
make of it I shall presently show. Only one copy of the text has anything
approaching the correct name, but the various modes of writing cannot all be
rendered by Persian types. Some have .l—2—,;!—,—and = The Cal-
cutta ‘* Official Text’’—which is very defective at this particular part—has
pain the page and ,» in a note; and wherever this name occurs it is
vitiated in the way above mentioned.

Von Hammer styles it Lamsir, which is net very far wide of the mark ; but,
when he styles Gird-koh by the impossible name of Kirdkuh, it is not to be
wondered at that the other is not correct. D’Ohsson, to judge from the ^" Afon-
gols ८ roper,”” appears to call it Lamsher and Lamhessar ; Quatremére alone is
correct. This place is called Lambah-Sar—, «J—which may be written
in one word—,—¢) = 47604 signifies anything round or circular, such
as an apple, an orange, or the like, and Say means, summit, top, head,
etc. It is the name of a mountain in the territory of Mazandaran, near
Gird-Koh, which signifies the Round or Circular Hill or Mountsin, also in
Mazandaran ; and on each of these mountains the Mulahidahs had erected a
strong fortress. The latter place, which will be again referred to, lies a short
distance from Damghan, but neither place is to be found in the large map of
Persia lately published by the India Office, nor were they, apparently, known
to the most recent travellers in that part of the Persian empire ; and I beg to
suggest that some of those who may travel that way in future should pay both
Lanbah-Sar and Gird-Koh a visit, both sites being well known in those parts.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1189

style “The Maulana ”—God curse them all!—from the
Didlamis for a large sum of money.

Having brought there a pregnant female slave of his
own, he represented to people, saying: “She is pregnant
by Mustansir, the Misri, [the Ismaili Khalifah of Egypt],
and, flying from enemies, I have brought her to this place,
for, from the lineage of this burden [which she bears] will
spring the _Imam-i-Akhir-i-Zaman and Mahdi-i-Awan,”®
accompanied with vain and impotent words, the like of
which no sensible person would allow to pass in his imagi-
nation, or enter his heart. God curse him!

After he purchased those fortresses, he repaired the
fortress of Alamit, and expended incalculable wealth in
the restoration of, and providing that stronghold with
stores and provisions. It is situated on a mountain in the
vicinity of the city of Kazwin. The inhabitants of that
city are all orthodox Sunnis, of pure faith, and unsullied
belief ; and, through the Batiniah and Mulahidah heresy,
continual fighting and contention used to go on between
them [and those heretics].

Trustworthy persons have narrated that all the people
and inhabitants of the city of Kazwin had entire sets of
arms ready, and implements of warfare in preparation, to
such degree, that all the द people were used to come
completely armed to their shops; and conflicts used to
take place daily between the Kazwinis and the Mulahidahs
of Alamit, up to the period when the outbreak of the
Chingiz Khan took place, and the domination of the
Mughals over Irak and the Jibal. Kazi Shams-ud-Din,
the Kazwini, who was a sincere Imam and truly learned
man, upon several occasions, travelled from Kazwin
towards Khita, and suffered the distress of separation from
country and home, until this time, during the sovereignty
of Mangi Khan, when he again set out, and proceeded to
his presence. In such manner as was feasible he en-
deavoured to obtain aid, and gave an account of the

® The Director or Guide, the last of the twelve Imims, Muhammad-i-Abi-1
Kasim, the son of Hasan-al-Askari, the eleventh of the Imims, born in 255 H.,
whom the Shi’ahs believe to be still alive, and whose manifestation, according
to the Kur’an, is one of the signs of the Judgment Day.

1190 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

wickedness of the Mulahidah and their sedition in the
Muhammadan states.’

1 In the year 654 H., but Hafiz Abri, and some others, say in 653 प्र.
?Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Hasan, son of Muhammad, the seventh: D@’i
or Apostle, or Missionary, of the Mulahidahs, died at the end of the month
of Shawwal. He was the only son of the Nau Musalman [referred to in note 4,
page 265—nax, in the Persian of the East, signifies “ new,” ‘* fresh,” etc., but
Von Hammer's “ ev” is very nau indeed], and, when he grew up, his brain,
it is said, was affected, and he refused, in consequence, to attend to any
instructions brought by his own envoys from the Mughal sovereigns, so the
Pro-Mughal writers say; but the correct reason was that he thought himself
strong enough to preserve his independence, but he was mistaken. In his
reign, the Muhtashim [Preceptor], Nasir-ud-Din, who held the chief authority
over the Kuhistan, which tract of country has been repeatedly mentioned before,
seized the Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din, the Tiisi—the celebrated Sifi poet—and
compelled him to proceed along with him to the presence of ’Ald-ud-Dfn,
Muhammad ; and the Khwajah continued with him, in his stronghold of Mai-
miin [dujz], until the arrival of Hulakii in I-ran-Zamin. There he composed
his celebrated work, the Akhlak-i-Nagiri, which, the Rauzat-us-Safa says, was
dedicated to the Muhtashim Nasir-ud-Din, who nevertheless threw him into
prison, at the instigation of the traitor Wazir of the Khalifah, mentioned far-
ther on. There are other versions of this, however, and the Khwajah is
said to have gone thither of his own free will and accord, and to satisfy his
feelings of revenge, as will be subsequently mentioned.

After Mangi Ka’an had determined upon sending forces into I-ran-Zamin,
to guard the Mughal conquests therein, he despatched the Ni-yin, Tanji
[9४५ It is sometimes written 5*\)—but incorrectly so] thither. Soon after his
arrival there he became so much grieved—disinterested creature !—at the con-
duct of the Isma’ili heretics, and the Khalifah of Baghdad, towards the people
generally, that he despatched an agent to the presence of the Ka’an to com-
plain of them both. How history repeats itself! We might read Bulgaria for
I -ran, and the ’Usmanli Sultan for the ’Abbasi Khalifah.

At this juncture, likewise, the great Kazi, Shams-ud-Din, from I-ran-Zamin,
presented himself in Mangii Ka’an’s ud, and was graciously received. As
the Kzi, out of terror of the Isma'ilis, was in the habit of wearing mail under
ˆ his clothes, one day Mangii Ka’an, having observed it, asked him the reason
of such an unusual dress for an ecclesiastic. He replied: ‘‘It is now several
years since I, out of fear of the Isma’ili Fida-is, who like unto ’Azra-il—the
Angel of Death—however much a person may guard himself, still contrive to
reach and destroy him, began to wear this mail as a protection.” Von Ham-
mer makes a muddle of this matter also, and says that ‘‘the judge of Kaswin,
who was at the Khan’s court, wet in armour to the audience, fearing the -
daggers of the assassins,” as though they were there. The Habib-us-Siyar
says the Kazi, through fear of the Ism@’ili’s daggers, used to wander about
the country in the scales of his armour, like a shell-fish in its shell, and by his
importunities at last impelled Mangii to send a numerous army into I-ran-
Zamin. The author of the ‘‘ Afongols Proper,” however, who appears to have
taken the story from D’Ohsson, puts a piece upon it, and states, that such was the
terror of the “‘ fedavies,” that °" the chief officers and more prominent men of Us
(Western Asia’s| various courts” wore coats of mail under their clothes ०5 ४

precaution, ’ etc.!

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1191
They [the trustworthy persons] also related in this wise,

To return to Mangii and the Kazf. He related to the Ka’in—or manufac-
tured for him—such atrocities on the part of the heretics—as might be expected
` from one so orthodox as himself—that Mangii was amazed ; and he resolved in
his mind that he would utterly destroy that sect. Having observed indications
of capacity and fitness for sovereignty on the brow of his brother, Hulaki, he
determined to nominate him to carry out his intention, and at the same time
to take possession of, and secure, the territories to the west of I-rin-Zamin—
the real object in view, of course—namely, Sham, Riim, and Arman. Hulaki
having been nominated, he was informed that the forces along with the Ni-
yin, Tanja, and those lately under Jirmighiin, which had been previously
despatched into I-rin Zamin, ‘all appertained to him; and likewise, in the
same way, those which had been sent into Hindiistén under the Bahadur,
Ta-ir, after his death, came under the command of the Tattar Ni-yin, Sali.
Sali, according to the Pro-Mughal writers, had subdued the country of
Kashmir, and several thousand Kashmiri captives had been sent by him to
the Ka’an’s urd#. There is still a Sali ki Sarde on the route from Rawal
Pindi to Khanpfr, an old place, and formerly of some importance. See page
844, where Sali is mentioned, and page 1135 for Ta-ir’s death.

Vast preparations were made for Hulikii’s movement, and, besides the
armies already in the countries of I-ran-Zamin, Mangii commanded that, out of
all the forces of the Chingiz Khan, that is, the various Aazérahs already men-
tioned at page 1093, which he had assigned to and divided among his brothers,
his sons, and brothers’ sons, out of every ten persons two should be selected
[they had vastly increased, too, since the time of the Chingiz Khan] and sent
to serve under Hulékii. The numbers are variously mentioned at from
120,000 to 180,000 horse. Besides these, a thousand families of Khita-i
Manjanik-chis [catapult workers], Naft-Andaz [naphtha-throwers], and
Charkh-Andaz [shooters of fiery arrows worked by a wheel] were to accom-
pany him, and they brought along with them such a vast amount of missiles
and stores appertaining to their peculiar branch of the forces as cannot be
enumerated. They had with them also Charkhi Kamans [wheeled arba-
lists], worked by a wheel in such wise that one bow-string would pull three
bows, each of which would discharge an arrow of three or four ells in length.
These arrows or bolts, from the notch for the bow-string to near the head, were
covered with feathers of the vulture and eagle, and the bolts were short and
Strong. These machines would also throw naphtha. The bolts [stc—,3] of
the catapults were made of ash, very tough and strong, and covered with the
hides of horses and bullocks [to prevent their being burnt], like as a dagger in its
sheath ; and each catapult was so constructed as to be capable of being sepa-
rated into five or seven parts, and easily put together again. These catapults
and mangonels were brought from Khita-e on carts into Turkistan, under the
direction of skilful engineers and mechanists, but there is no evidence what-
¢ver to show that they had any knowledge of gunpowder, but quite the con-
trary. “

As soon as the expedition had been determined on, agents were despatched
in order that wheresoever the passage of the great host should be, from Kara-
Kuram to the Amuiah, all the available pasture-lands and grazing tracts should
be laid under embargo [the word used is kurik, the same that is used with
teference to the site of the subterranean chamber in which the Chingiz Khan
was buried, but signifies enclosed as well as prohibited.. The word is quite

1192 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
that, in the presence of Mangii Khan, the Kazi, according

common in our district Law Courts in India] for the use of the forces. Strong
bridges were also constructed over the different rivers by the way to enable
the great host to cross with ease and facility. Throughout the whole empire
[east of the Sihiin probably] orders were sent so that, for the use of the army,
at the ratio of a ¢aghar [an earthen vessel of capacity ; also a saddle-bag for
holding corn er meal, which is probably meant here, and, of course, filled.
Some authors state that a ८1267 is equivalent to 100 mavns of Tabriz, others
to 10 manns of Tabriz, equal to one £karwdr] of meal, and a £47¢ [a skin or
‘leather bottle of liquor—/#zmzs] for each man, should be collected.

The Ni-yin, Tanji, and his army, together with the troops which had pre-
viously been sent into I-ran-Zamin under Jirmaghin, now received orders to
move towards the frontiers of Rim.

All things being prepared, and the different Shah-zadahs and Nii-yins, and
the Hazarahs, and Sadhahs [leaders of thousands, and hundreds], having been
nominated, the Nii-yin, Kaibika, the Naeman, was sent at the head of
12,000 horse, as the advance or van of Hulakii’s forces, in Jamadi-ul-Akhir,
650 प्र. Kaibika- “ Kitubuka” is not correct—crossed the Amiifah in the
beginning of Muharram, 651 H. [early in March, 1253 A.D.], entered Khurasan,
which he reached in Rabi’-ul-Awwal, and occupied himself in the reduction of
the Kuhistan.

His first attempt, with 5000 horse and 5000 foot [Tajzik levies from the
conquered states], was against the strong fortress of Gird-Koh, already referred
to, but he found it a much more difficult matter than he expected. He sur-
rounded it with a wall, furnished with a ditch inside, towards the fortress, and
raised another wall, with a ditch outside, and between these two walls placed
his forces, more like one besieged than a besieger, to guard his force from the
sallies of the Fida-is. All his efforts were useless, so he left a force there
under Biri, to watch that fortress, and moved himself towards Mihrin-dujz—
another stronghold of the sect. He invested that likewise, placed catapults in
position against it, left several Amirs with troops to carry on the siege, and
proceeded himself, with the rest of his forces, which, no doubt, had been
greatly increased in point of numbers by the levies and contingents of those
places in Khurdsin under the Mughal yoke, against the fort of Shah-dujz,
which he reached on the 8th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, and slew a number of
people outside, and then made towards the districts of Taram and Riid-bar,
between Gilin and Kazwin. He then appeared with his forces before the
fortresses of Mangiiriah and Alah-Bashin, and for eighteen days tried his
utmost to take them, but all his efforts were of no effect. Hethen faced about
and moved into the Kuhistan again, drove off the flocks and herds of the
people of Tin, Turshiz, and Zar-Koh, slaughtered a vast number of people,
and carried away a great number of captives. On the 1oth of Jamédi-ul-
Akhir, he gained possession of Tiin and Turghiz, these being the first places
that fell into his hands. On the Ist of Sha’ban he took Mihrin-dujg, and, on
the 27th of Rarhagan, the Dujz-i-Kamaii also fell.

On the 9th of Shawwal, the Fida-is of Gird-Koh made a sally at night upon
the Mughals, destroyed their circumvallation, and slew the greater number of
them, including their leader, Biri. At this time a pestilence had broken out
within Gird-Koh, and, as soon as ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Maulana of
the Mulahidahs, had intimation of it, he at once despatched Mubiriz-ud- Din,
"Ali, Saraban*, and Shuja’-ud-Din, Hasan, Tiirani, with 110 picked men, to

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1193
to the practice of Musalman dignity and religion, used

Gird-Koh, with directions that each man should carry with him one manz of
Rinnd and two manns of salt [in all, about 21 or 24 lbs. ]—-the Jami’-ut-Tawa-
rikh says two of Ainnd and three of salt—because Ainnd had lately been
discovered, accidentally, to be the antidote for the pestilence.

The author of the ^^ Monguls Proper” has, or his authorities, perhaps, have,
made a very amusing story out of the above—for the source is evidently the
same. He says, p. 194: ^ One ofthe garrison [of Girdkjuk—i. e., "^ the Round
Mountain ”—so ‘‘kjuk ” isa mountain, perhaps—the same which Von Hammer
turns into ^^ Kirdkuh ”] escaped, and sent to Alaeddin, the Grand Visiter, to
ask for help. He sent two leaders, each with 110 troopers ; one to escort
three mens of salt, the other three mens of henna,” etc.—equal to about one
ounce of salt and 4im#d each, even if only 400 people were within the walls.

At this place, in Alff, an anecdote is related respecting the discovery of
Akinna as a remedy for the disease which affected the defenders of several great
fortresses, as our author relates, and which, from his account at page 1124,
appears to have been scurvy or something very much like it. It is that the
daughter of the Amir of that fortress was going to be married, and, on the
night of the consummation of the marriage, the custom was to dye the bride’s
hands and feet with $. This was done; and, those who applied the dye
having afterwards washed their hands, some of the pestilence-stricken people,
on account of the scarcity of water, drank that water, and recovered in a won-
derfully short time. This seems but another version of our author’s account of
the cure wrought by 4innd in his description of the investment of Uk of Sistan,
at the paye above mentioned.

I must now return to the movements of Hulakii. Before setting out for
I-ran-Zamin, he took leave of his brother Mangi, and his nephews, in order to
return to his own urdis, where his wives and children were. Mangi Ka’an,
before parting with him, gave him much wise counsel for his guidance. He
enjoined him to observe the laws and ordinances of the Chingiz Khan ; and,
from the Jibiin of Amiiiah, to the extreme frontier of Misr, and Maghrib, to
protect and cherish all who submitted to him, but to exterminate all those who
did not, and to trample them into the dust of destruction, women, children, and
all fin “the true Circassian style” ], and to commence with the fortresses of
the Mulahidahs in the Kuhistén. He was then to march into ‘Irak, and
remove off the face of the earth the Liirs—a tribe of nomads so-called— and
the Kurds, whose misdeeds [in not submitting to the ameliorating Mughals,
and which hardy race have, in these days, given offence, in the same way, to
another “ameliorator,” and are to be extirminated as early as practicable]
never ceased ; then to call upon the Khalifah of Baghdad to submit; and, if
he should do so, not to molest him in the least ; but, if he showed arrogance,
and refused, to send him to join the others. He was further advised to make
judgment and sense his guide and model ; to be prudent and watchful ; to be
mindful of the deceit and treachery of enemies ; to give tranquility to the
people generally, and make them happy [by killing them !]; to cause ruined
places to be restored ; to subdue the contumacious, so that he might have
plenty of places wherein to make his summer and his winter quarters ; and
always, in all things, to consult and advise with [प्त Khatiin. This name
is also written Tukiiz, Zand ¢ being interchangeable. She was a Karayat and
a Christian, the daughter of Aighii or Aiki—written A-yaghi—,#/—in Alfi—

a son of the Awang Khan. WHulaki greatly favoured the Christians on her

4 ©

1194 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
stern language, in such manner that the wrath of sove-

account ; and throughout his dominions churches were allowed to be built. At
the entrance of the #rd# of this Khatiin, a 4a/tsa—church or chapel [felt tent}—
was always pitched ; and they used to sound the sadéés—a thin oblong piece
of wood, so called, suspended by two strings, and struck with a flexible rod,
called zwadi/, used by Eastern Christians to summon the congregation for
divine service.

Mangii Ka’an assumed that his brother Hulakii would take up his residence,
permanently, in I-ran-Zamin; nevertheless, he told him that, after he had
accomplished all these things, he should return to his व.

Mangii now dismissed him, along with two of his wives, his sons, and Amirs ;
and sent along with him their brother, Tursiitae Aghiil, and some of their nephews
to serve under him. Mangi, it is said, was greatly affected at parting with Hu-
lakii, for he considered him the jewel in the diadem of the empire, and that both
shed copious tears. He reached his own srds at the end of the year 650 H.
The Tarikh-i-Jahin-gir and the Raugat-us-Safa say that he returned to his
srdus in the third month of 651 H., to make his preparations, but the Jami’-
ut-Tawarikh says in Zi-Hijjah, 650 H.

He set out from his srdés for I-ran-Zamin on the 24th of Sha’ban, 651 H.—
the Rauzat-us-Safa says he began his march in Ramagan, while the Jami’-ut-
Tawarikh says it was in Zi-Hijjah, 651 H.—having made his son, Balgbi
Aghiil, his representative there during his absence, as that son’s mother was
the greatest in rank among his wives, two of whom, and two sons, went with
him. The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, in one place, says Jimkir, or Jiimghiir, was
left in charge, and, in another place, that it was Ajae who was left.

A vast army accompanied him ; and in due time he reached Almaligh, where
the Khatiin Urghanah, one of Chaghatie’s widows, received and entertained
him. Having moved from thence, on the frontier of Turkistin and Mawara-
un-Nahr, the Sahib, Mas’iid Bak, and several other Amirs, received him.
He passed some months of 652 H. in those parts; and, in Sha’ban, 653 H.—
about October, 1253 A.D.—reached Samrkand, having been just two years on
the road. He encamped in the mead of K4n-i-Gul, where Mas’iid Bak had a
great tent pitched for him of nasic¢h~—a species of silken fabric woven with
gold—and passed forty days there, happily, but for the death of his brother,
Tursitée Aghil, who had been long ailing, and who was there buried.
Hulaki, after this stay, marched to Kash, afterwards known as Shahr-i-Sabz,
at which place he remained a month; and there the Amir, Arghin Aka, the
administrator of I-ran-Zamin, from Tis [in the previous year, when Rubruquis
returned to Europe, the Amir, Arghiin Aka was at Tauris, who, as he remarks,
collected the tribute], as in duty bound, waited on him to give up charge of
that region, after which he was to return to the presence of the Ka’an, and
there, also, came Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Kurat from Hirat—
some say he presented himself to Hulakii at Samrkand.

Whilst at Kash, Hulakii issued a farmdn to the Sultans and Rulers of
]-ran-Zamin, pretending that the object of his coming was to destroy the
strongholds of the Mulahidahs for the sake of the people of those parts,
‘swho,’’ he said, ‘‘ have sought the protection of the Kaan, and made com-
plaint unto him ;” “the people,” in this case, being one Kazi! The object
stated was as specious and illusive as an invasion of the same nature in these
days—it was to appropriate the territories of the weak. ‘‘ If ye present your-
selves in person,” he said, ‘‘and render assistance, your services will be

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1196
reignty overcame Mangii Khan; for the Kazi applied the

appreciated, and your territories, forces, dwellings, and property will be spared
to you ; but if ye show negligence or indifference to the purport of this /arman,
when, with God’s help [history repeats itself again], we shall have finished
with the Isma’ilis, we shall turn our face towards you ; and the same will
befall you as befalls them.”

When the news of Hulakii’s arrival became spread abroad, ‘‘the Sultans
and Maliks ” are said to have poured in, among whom was Sultan Rukn-ud-
Din of Riim—he, however, was not Sultin of Rim at all, but merely the
envoy of his brother, Sultan Kai-Ka-iis, and acted treacherously towards him
for his own ambitious ends; see page 164—and ’Izz-ud-Din, the son of the
Ati-Bak, Mugaffar-ud-Din, and others from 'Irak, Azarbaijan, Aran, Sher-
wan, Giirjistin, and various Maliks, Sadrs, and other great men. On reaching
the Jihiin of Amiiiah, orders were given to lay all the vessels and boats on the
river under embargo. With these a strong bridge was constructed ; and, on
the 1st of Zi-Hijjah [the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir says Shawwal, two months
before], 653 H.—31st December, 1255 A.D., but see under—Hulaki crossed
with his army, at what point is not stated, but at the Tirmid ferry, in all
probability ; and, for the first time, set foot in I-rin-Zamin. Asa reward to
the boatmen for their services, he remitted the collection of tolls from them,
and that tax afterwards entirely ceased. Next day, ‘‘several lions were seen—
the word ser is applied to the tiger also, but, considering the high latitude,
we may assume that some other less formidable animals are referred to, since
a real dion hunt on two-humped camels, as stated, would be a sight indeed—and,
they having been enclosed by a circle of men, Hulakii mounted, and two of
them were ‘‘caught in the toils.” The next day’s march brought him to
Shiwarghan, or Shiwarkan [२५८ Shibbergan].

His intention was to stay but one day there, but it so happened that, on the
following day, which was the ’Id-i-Azha—the roth of Zi-Hijjah—[such being
the case, he must have crossed on the 8th, or remained from the Ist to the
8th] the snow and sleet began to fall, and continued for seven consecutive
days and nights, and a great number of cattle perished through the excessive
cold. He had no choice but to winter there. Our author’s statement, that
he made the territory of Badghais his headquarters is much more probable,
or rather the whole tract between Shiwarghan and Badghais, considering the
number of his troops. See note 1, p. 1226. In the spring, Arghiin Akaset up
a vast audience-tent of silk and gold, fitted with furniture and utensils befitting,
of gold and silver studded with precious stones, and worthy of a mighty monarch.
It was pitched at an auspicious hour by Hulakii’s command ; and, at a felicitous
conjanction of the stars, he mounted the throne set up therein, and received the
congratulations of all the Khans, Shah-zadahs, Amirs, Maliks, and Hakims
of all parts around then assembled there. After the ceremonial, the Amir,
Arghiin Aka, set out for the presence of the Ka’an, as commanded by him,
leaving his son, Girade Malik, with Ahmad, the Bitik-chi [Secretary], and the
Sabib [Wazir], ’Ald-ud-Din, Ata Malik, for the administration of the civil and
revenue affairs, with which Hulakié had nought to do, at that time. The latter
moved to Khowaf and Zawah, where he was taken ill, and consequently he
despatched Kaibiika and Kika-I-yalka, at the head ofa force, to complete the
conquest of the Kuhistan.

Early in 654 H., Hulak& sent Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Kurat,
to the Muhtashim, Nasir-ud-Din, one of the chief Da’is of the Isma His, who

4G 2

1196 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

words feebleness and infirmity to his government and
power. Mangii Khan said: “ What weakness hath the
Kazi observed in our kingdom that he gives utterance
to such like alarming words as these?” Kazi Shams-ud-
Din replied: “ What greater feebleness can there be than
that the sect of Mulahidah has made several forts its
asylum, notwithstanding that the creed of that sect ts
contrary to the Musalman faith, and also to the Christian
and Mughal belief? They parade their riches and they
wait in expectation of this, that, if your power should
sustain any decline or reverse, the sect will rise in the
midst of those mountains and in those fortresses, and over-
throw the remainder of the people of Islam, and not leave
the trace of a Musalman.”

This reality influenced and roused the mind of. Mangi
Khan to the reduction of the fortresses and territories of
Mulhidistan, and the Kuhistan of Alamut. A mandate was
accordingly issued so that the forces which were in the
countries of I-ran and ’Ajam, from Khurdasan and ‘Irak,
turned their faces to the territory of the Kuhistan and the
tract of Alamiit; and, during a period of ten years or
more, they took the whole of the cities and fortresses, and
put the whole of the Mulahidah to the sword, with the
exception? of the women and children, all the remainder

had grown old and feeble, and called upon him to submit. He appears to
have ruled the district of Tiin and its dependencies, in which was the fortress,
apparently that mentioned by our author above—Sar-i-Takht. Nisir-ud-Din
came on the 17th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, bringing presents ; and Hulaki de-
manded why he had not brought the garrison of the fortress along with him,
and was told that they would obey no orders but those of their Badshah, ’Ala-
_ud-Din, Khir Shah. This appears to have satisfied Hulakii, who conferred
upon him the government of Tiin and its districts, and sent him thither ; but
he died soon after. Hulikii now advanced to Tis, the seat of government
the Amir, Arghiin Aka, and then moved to Radakdn, where he stayed some
time, and Khabiishan [there is no place called “ Kabuskan ”], which the
Mughals call Kichan. He directed that this 4assahk [town] should be restored,
and that the means should be furnished from the treasury. The Adhrezes—sub-
terranean aqueducts—were repaired [he ‘‘ ordered” no ‘canals to be dug "b
and the Wazir and Secretary of the province, Saif-ud-Din, Aka, used his
utmost endeavours, as a Musalman, to bring the works to completion, espe
cially the Jami’ Masjid, which he himself endowed. Workshops were erected,
and gardens laid out ; and Amirs and prominent men were directed to build
dwellings for themselves, which they subsequently did.

2 He possibly means, not even exceptin the women and children, for eve®
the PrceMughal writers say that a// were exterminated.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1197

being sent to hell; andthe potency of the verse—“ Thus:
do we cause one oppressor to overcome another ’—was
made manifest.

This votary, who is Minhaj-i-Saraj, the writer of this
TABAKAT, and author of this history, upon three different
times, had occasion to travel into that part [the Kuhistan]
ona mission. The first occasion was in the year 621 H.,
from the fortress of Tilak, after Khuradsin had become
cleared of the Mughal forces, on account of the scarcity of
clothing, and dearth of some requisites, which had run out
in consequence of the irruption of the infidels ; and people
were distressed for necessaries of life. At the request of `
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Hasan-i-Salar, Khar-post, the author
proceeded from the fortress of Tilak to Isfirar, in order to
open the route for £érwans. From thence he proceeded
towards K4-in, and from that place to the fort of Sar-i-
Takht,? and Jowarsher, and Farman-dih of the territory of
the Kuhistan. At that time the Muhtashim [of the Mulahid-
ah] was Shihab-i-Mansiir, Abi-l-Fath. I [the author] found
him a person of infinite learning, with wisdom, science, and
philosophy, in such wise, that a philosopher and sage like
unto him there was not in the territory of Khurasan. He
used greatly to cherish poor strangers and travellers ; and
such Musalmans of Khurasan as had come into proximity
with him he was wont to take under his guardianship and
protection. On this account his assemblies contained
some of the most distinguished of the 7?Ulama of Khurdasan,‘
such as that Imam of the Age, Afzal-ud-Din, the Bamiani,
and Imam Shams-ud-Din, Khusrau-Shahi, and other
’"Ulama of Khurdsan, who had come to him; and he had
treated all of them with honour and reverence, and showed
them much kindness. They stated to this effect, that,

> Written = ~ with slight variation in two of the oldest, and two other
good AZSS. Subsequent writers mention a stronghold of the Mulahidahs in
the Kuhistan, in the district of Tin, under that name. Thrée of the most
modern copies of the text, the best Paris A/S., and the Calcutta Printed Text,
have ५.2,» which may be read Marikhat, Marba‘ht, or Maranjat, and in a
note to the Printed Text what may be read Rikht or 2101. It lay in one of
the common caravan routes. The same place, in the Rauzat-ugs-Safa, is written
Catt po OF (ok pe

+ Most copies of the text are deficient here.

1198 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

during those first two or three years of anarchy * in Khura-
san, one thousand honorary dresses, and seven hundred
horses, with trappings, had been received from his treasury
and stables by ’Ulama and poor strangers.

As the kindness and benefactions towards, and associa-
tion and intercourse of this Muhtashim, Shihab, with the
Musalmans became frequent, the Mulahidah sect sent
accounts to Alamiit saying: “ Very soon the Muhtashim,
Shihab, will give the whole of the property of the Da’wat-
Khianah [General Bounty Fund] to the Musalmans ;” and,
from Alamit, a mandate came for him to proceed thither ;
and the government of the Kuhistan ° was conferred upon
the Muhtashim, Shams [ud-Din], Hasan-i-Ikhtiyar.

When this servant of the victorious government returned
from the presence of the Muhtashim, Shihab, he proceeded,
for the purpose of purchasing the necessary clothing, to the
city of Tiin, and from thence returned to Ka-in,’ Isfirar,
and Tilak again. After some time, it happened that, in
622 H., the author chanced to proceed from Tilak to the
presence of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’Usman,
the Maraghani*—may he rest in peace !—at Khaesar of

$ The Printed Text is lamentably out here, and has ow for 3 but the
former makes the sentence totally unintelligible. The second word, férat,
refers to the Mughal invasion and distraction prevailing in those parts conse-
quent on their being without a sovereign or settled government.

* This shows that the power of the sect was still very great ; and that the
Mughal domination was but nominal at this period

7 At this period Ka-in was noted for the manufacture of very fine linen,
hair-cloth, and similar fabrics

§ This Malik, so often mentioned by our author, was the founder of
the Kurat [This word, which is said to signify greatness, magnificence,
grandeur, and the like, is written by some, Kart—¥,«»—and by others Kurt
—w,<e—and Kurat—,se—and this last mode is apparently the most cor-
rect] dynasty, respecting which European writers generally, and some Musal
man writers of Hindiistan likewise, appear to entertain very erroneous ideas.

Their descent is traced to Sultan Sanjar, the Saljik, on the father’s, and to
the Ghirf Sultans on the mother’s side, according to several authors ; while
others say that he was the son of one of the 7८ of the Sultans of Ghiir and
Ghaznin—the brothers, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sim, and Mu'izz-ud-
Din, Muhammad-i-Sam. A sister of those Sultans certainly did marry 8
Saljaik—Malik Kizil-Arsalin, nephew of Sultan Sanjar, and Kizil-Arsalan’s
son, Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Alb-i-Ghazi, received the investiture of the fief
of Hirat early in 599 H. When the Khwarazmi Sultan invested Hirat
the second time, he was its ruler, and had to surrender it. See note 4,
page 257. What relationship existed, or whether any, between him and the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1199

(गपा, and, at the request of that august Malik, consented

preceding feudatory of Hirat, ’Izz-ud-Din, ’Umr, the Maraghani, who is styled
Malik of Khuradsdn at page 193, is not, I fear, to be discovered, but the
Ghiri Sultans were certainly related in some way to the Maraghani Maliks.

Nagir-ud-Din, ’'Usmin-i-Harab, ruler of Sijistan and Nimroz, son of Malik
Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, married ’Ayishah Khatiin, daughter of this ’Umr-i-
Maraghanj. Much respecting Nagir-ud-Din, ’Usm4n's descendants, by that
lady, will be found at pages 193-202. See also note >, page 967.

Guzidah says ’Izz-ud-Din, > ता, was Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mubammad-
i-Sim’s Wazir, and held in great estimation. The Maraghanis are said, by
our author, to be Gharjahs, that is, natives of Gharjistin. ’Izz-ud-Din, फा
the Maraghani, held the fief of Hirat when Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm
shah, invested it in 598 प्र. [see note 7, page 257], and had to surrender that
stronghold to him at the close of the year.

While holding the fief of Hirat, *Izz-ud-Din, ’Umr, had entrusted his two
brothers with the seneschal-ship of two important fortresses, under his govern-
ment —Rukn-ud-Din [his Musalman name is not given, but it was, probably,
Muhammad-i-Abi-Bikr, from what follows] with that of Nigdristan, according
to Alfi, which name is doubtful, and is never once mentioned by our author, but
one of the great fortresses of Gharjistin is evidently meant ; and Taj-ud-Din,
"Usman, with that of Khaesar of (गता. Taj-ud-Din was Sar-i-Jandar to
Sultin Ghiyas-ud-Din’s son, Sultan Mahmid, and played an important part
during the investment of Firiiz-koh by the Khwarazmis. See page 410.
Taj-ud-Din, ’Usman, having died—the date is not given, but it must have
been subsequent to 607 H.—’Umr gave Khaesar, and a portion of Ghiir, to his
other brother, Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad(-i-Abi-Bikr ?], who, some say, “ was
the maternal grandfather of Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad,” the founder
of the Kurat dynasty, to whom Mangii Ka’an gave the fief of Hirat and its
dependencies, with some other territory.

Now, 25 ’Umr's brother, Rukn-ud-Din, had already been provided for, it is
evident to me that instead of reading, as in some copies of the original, that
’Umr gave Khaesar of Ghir, and some other territory, to his radar —brother,
we should read érddar-sddah—brother’s son, for it is certain, from the names
given by our author above, that Usman is the name of the father of the chief
of Khaesar of Ghir to whom he refers, and whose agent our author was, and
that the chief was himself called Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, as was his father’s
brother $ and, moreover, the period named—622 H.—makes this view the
more certain, because the Chingiz Khan died in 624 H., and Rukn-ud-Din,
Mubammad-i-’Usmian, during the Mughal troubles, made interest with the
Ni-yin, [chikdae—and, from what our author says, this Malik appears to
have been unmolested while all other parts of Ghiir, and territories around,
were invaded by the Mughals—and the Chingiz Khan confirmed him in the
possession of his territory.

The similarity of names has apparently caused confusion in some of the
accounts of the Kurat dynasty, and I think I can show how. Malik ’Izz-ud-
Din, ’Umr, the Maraghani, had two brothers, as already stated—one Taj-ud-
Din, "क्ण, the other Rukn-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr. When Tilt Khan obtained
possession of Hirat, he left there, it is said, as nominal governor, under the
Mughals, along with the Mughal Shahnah, Mangatie, ‘‘ Abi-Bikr, the Mara-
ghani,” without giving his title ; and this person is, according to my theory,
the same who tendered submission to the Mughals, and the brother of ’Izz-ud-

1200 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

to go on a mission towards the territory of the Kuhistan a

Din, "फा, and of Taj-ud-Din, ’Usmin. Abi-Bikr,—that is Rukn-ud-Din,
Muhammad-i-Abi-Bikr—the Maraghani, was put to death soon after, along
with Mangatie, the Mughal Shahnah, when the Hiratis threw off the yoke,
leaving, as I suppose, among other children probably, a daughter, who was
given in marriage to Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Taj-ud. Din, Usman,
our author’s chief of Khaesar of Ghir, who thus married his cousin. The
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the first of the dynasty, is the son of the
said Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’Ugmin, our author’s patron, who died in
643 प.

Most of the works which give an account of the Kurat dynasty, including
Alfi, state that “ Malik Rukn-ud-Din was the maternal grandfather of Malik
Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, while Fasih-i states distinctly, in several places,
that Shams-ud-Din, Mubammad, was Rukn-ud-Din’s son, and Rukn-ud-Din,
Abi-Bikr’s son. Both statements, according to what I have mentioned above,
would be quite correct—Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Abi-Bikr, would be the
maternal grandfather, and Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’ Usman, of our author,
would be Shams-ud-Din’s father, and, at the same time, nephew and son-in-law
of the first-mentioned Rukn-ud-Din ; but even then the Saljuki descent does not
appear. It is said that, ‘‘when Malik Rukn-ud-Din used to attend the camp of
the Chingiz Khan, and Uktae Ka’an, and the Mughal Ni-yins, he used to
take Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, along with him, so that he became acquainted
with the Mughal usages and regulations.” This too is not incompatible.
When taken to the Chingiz Khan’s camp, he went with his maternal grand-
father, Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Abi-Bikr, and, when he attended at
Uktae’s, he accompanied his father, Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’ Usman.

A member, apparently, of the same family, Amir Muhammad, the Maraghanl,
was killed in the fortress of Ashiyar of Gharjistin. He had done good
service against the Mughals [see page 1077]. In 643 H., Malik Rukn-ud-Din
[Usman] died ; and he, previous to his death, nominated his son, Shams-ud-
Din, Muhammad, heir and successor to his fief. In 646 H., Malik Shams-ud-
Din, Muhammad, proceeded into Turkistan, to the urd of the Ka’an, for the
purpose of being confirmed in the fief; and, during one of the affairs in which
the Ka’an was engaged against his enemies, Mangii’s notice was drawn to
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, who was greatly distinguishing himself.
The Ka’an inquired who he was; and, when he was informed, he caused a
yarlizh to be issued confirming him in his father’s fief of प्य, and added
thereto that of Hirat, Gharjistin, Sawah, Farah, and Sijistin, subject, of
course, to the Mughal authorities in I-ran-Zamin.

In that same year, previous to proceeding to the urdu of the Ka’an, Malik
Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, is said to have slain Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ali,
the Suftari, son of Bahram Shah, ruler of Nimroz, whose maternal grandfather
was ’Izz-ud-Din, ’Umr, the Maraghani, and Shams-ud-Din, Mubammad’s
great uncle on both the father's and mother’s side, but our author was unac-
quainted, seemingly, with the facts respecting Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ali's
death. See pages 193 and 197. When Shams-ud-Din, Mubammad, appeared
before Manyii Ka’an, he inquired of him: ‘‘ Wherefore didst thou slay Malik
१17 ?' He replied : ‘‘I slew him for this reason that the Ka’an might make
the inquiry of me, ‘Wherefore didst thou kill him?’ and not inquire of Atm
why he had killed me.” Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, likewise obtained posses-
sion of the fortress of Bakar —S—which, from the time of Niighirwan, no one

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1201

second time, in order that the route for karwans might be

had been able to possess himself of by force. It is the name of a fortress of
Sijistin.

Subsequently, in 647 #., he slew the Malik of Gharjistan, Saif-ud-Din—
who he was is doubtful, but a kinsman probably—within the territory of Hirat.
The reason is obvious. After his return from the srd# of the Ka’an, with the
investiture of these different tracts, in which were situated several of the great
fortresses mentioned previously by our author, he had to gain possession of them
tf he could ; and the chiefs in possession of them were not inclined to give them
up, and submit to the Kurat, like as the Hakims of Tal-kan, Sawah, and Tilak,
had done. No further particulars are given of these events.

Our author probably may not have known from personal observation that
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’Usman, had become a feudatory of the
Mughals, for he left his native country and retired into Hind in 623 H., but he
could scarcely have failed to hear of it afterwards. However, he does not say
the Malik was not a feudatory : he is only silent on the subject. There is no
mention of Khaesar being a strong fortress, although it is most probable that
it was such. Yet we cannot fail noticing, that, when all other places were
assailed by the Mughals, captured, or compelled to submit, Khaesar of Ghir
was left unmolested. The reason is palpable—Rukn-ud-Din, Mubammad-i-
’Usman, had made his submission to the Mughals through the Ni-yin,
Iichikdae, who was a nephew of the Chingiz Khan to boot.

We are told, at page 1006, that the Chingiz Khan conferred upon Malik
Taj-ud-Din, Habashi-i-’Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-Zarrad, the territory of Ghir,
with the title of Khusrau of Ghir. In this case Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-
i-’ Usman, must have been subordinate to him, or the territory of Khaesar must
have been distinct, by virtue of its Malik being also subject to the Mughal yoke,
but he soon threw it off, and, fighting against them, was killed.

Nine years after the Nii-yin, Mangitah [Mr. Dowson’s ‘‘ Mang Khan.” See
page 809], abandoned the siege of Uchchah, as has been recorded, and at whose
appearance on the Sind or Indus in the year 644 H., Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan,
the K4rliigh, had fled from Multan, Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Kurat,
son of Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’Usmin, accompanied the Ni-yin, Sali, into
Hind. Having entered it, ‘‘ Sali despatched Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad,
to Multan, in 654 H., on a mission to that Shaikh of Shaikhs, Baha-ud-Din,
Zakaria—commonly styled, at this day, Baha-ul-Hakk, whose tomb we had to
batter so much during the siege of Multan in 1848-9—and an accommodation
was agreed upon. The sum of 100,000 dindrs was paid to sccure this accom-
modation, and probably to save Multan from being sacked; and a Mamlik of
Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad’s, named the Chingiz Khan, was [made ?] Hakim
at Multan.” See pages 711, 784, 792, and 844.

‘‘From thence the Ni-yin, Sali, with Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the
Kurat, proceeded towards Luhawiir—Lahor—where, at that time, was Kurit
or Kurat Khwan—fsic. ७19४ There wasa Kuret Khan among the Maliks
of Dihli, No. XV., but he was never feudatory of Lahor, and was dead
before this period].” He was probably no subject of the Dihli kingdom,
for, at this time, Lahor had been lost to it, and the Khokhars are said to have
occupied the ruins of Lahor after its sack by the Mughals in 639 H. ^^ Sali
entered into an accommodation with this person,” whoever he might have
been, ‘‘on the payment of 30,000 dinars, 30 Aharwars—loads sufficient to load
an ass with—of soft fabrics, and 100 captives.”

1202 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

reopened. From Khaesar he [the author] proceeded

५५ After this, the subordinates of the Ni-yin, Sali, plotted against Malik
Shams-ud-Din, Mubammad, upon which he retired from Hind, and set out to
return to Ghiir. On the way he was arrested and detained by Malik ’Imad-
ud-Din, the Ghirf. Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, on this, despatched a trusty
agent to the Bahadur, Ta-ir, then commanding the troops in those parts [and,
consequently, if this be true, this Ta-ir could not have been killed at Lahor in
639 H., as our author states at page 1135], telling him of his seizure and detention
while on his way to his, Ta-ir's, presence. Ta-ir directed his release, and he
came to Ta-ir’s urdi, and, after that, he retained Shams-ud-Din, Mubammad,
near his own person.”

In a book published at the commencement of this Afghan crisis, entitled
** History of Afghanistan from the Earliest Period,” by Colonel G. B. Malleson,
C.S.1., we are told, at page 114, with reference to the year 1249, that :—

‘*Inthat year, Shir Khan, the governor of the Panjab for the Ki ng of Dehli,
Nasir-u-Din Mahmud, invaded Afghanistan, seized upon Ghazni and Kabul, and
annexed them to the Dehli monarchy. It is probable that Og were speedily
recovered, for not only, in subsequent years, do we find the Moghols making
repeated incursions into India, but in the year 1336 traces appea r of a new
A ohana dynasty seated on the throne of Ghazni, owning subordination to, and
acknowledging the suzerainty of, the Moghols of Central Asia.”

Now the text above translated—The Tabakit-i-Nasirli—was dedicated to,
and named after the Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, who is referred to in the
above extract, and in no work extant will such details be found respecting that
reign in particular, and also the history of the Ghiris. Indeed all later his-
torians obtain their information from this Tabakat, for there was no other
contemporary writer but its author, that we know of, who gives such details.
Sher Khan, i.e. the Lion Khan—Sher signifying Lion, but ‘‘ SA/r,’’ as in the
work above referred to, signifies ‘‘ A7#/k”—The Milk [and Water ?] Khan—is
no other than the great Malik, the cousin of Ulugh Khan-i-A’gam, a memoir
of whom is given at page 791, and who was living when our author finished
his work, and was personally known to him.

Nothing of the above romantic statements as to ‘the throne of Ghazni”
and ‘‘ Kabul ”’ will be found recorded in the text, for the reason that they
never happened ; and nowhere will such be found save in Dow, Briggs, and
Firishtah. See notes *, page 690, and ', page 794, para. 7.

The events of the year 647 H.—1249 A.D.—will be found at pages 685 and
820. The following year, Sher Khan-i-Sunkar re-took Multan from the Mughals,
and, in the year in question, ousted a rival Malik of the Dihli Court, who was
disaffected, and intriguing with the Mughals, from Ochchah ; and, soon after,
he actually had himself to retire to the क of Mangi Ka’an, while his rival
went to Hulakii. The reason of this will be found fully explained by our
author respecting the disorders in the Dihli kingdom. This re-capture of
Multan and seizure of Uchchah is what the Dakhani compiler, Firishtaly
made Ghaznin of, but even he and his translators only make ^" Shere, te
emperor's nephew (which he was not], take Ghirni ;” not Kabul too.

Col. Malleson then adds :—

‘This Afghan dynasty, like that which preceded it, came from Ghor.
Probably [!] it was the chief of the Afghan tribe [sic. tribe !] in the Ghor
mountains to whom the Moghol suzerain delegated his authority. They

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1203

towards Farah, and from thence to the Kala’-i-[fort of]
Kah of Sistan, then on to the Hisar [fortified or walled
town] of Karah, and to Tabas and the fort of Mimin-
abad, and thence to Ka’in. At Kain the author saw the
Muhtashim, Shams, who was a man of the military pro-
fession. From this latter place the author returned to
Khaesar.

When the year 623 H. came round, the writer of this,
who is Minhaj-i-Saraj, determined to undertake a journey
into Hindiistan; and, as a requirement for the journey
into that country, with the permission of Malik Rukn-ud-
Din, Muhammad-i-’Usman, the Maraghani, of Khiaesar
fof Ghir], he proceeded to Farah, in order that a little
silk might be purchased. On his arriving in the neigh-
bourhood of Farah, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, the
Khwarazmi, mention of whom has already been made in
the Section containing the account of the Maliks of Nimroz,
was ruling the country of Sistan. Hostility had arisen
between him and the Mulahidahs on account of the fort

ruled from 1336 to 1383. The first 8 + Shams-u-Din Ghori, and his
two immediate successors, Rukh-u-Din [sic], and Fakhri-din [sic] Ghori,”
etc., etc.

I beg to differ entirely from Col. Malleson with regard to this latter state-
ment, as well as the former ones. These errors all emanate from the same
source, of Dow and Briggs making Tajzik Ghiiris the ^ Afghan dynasty of
Ghor,” and turning the people of Ghiir into Afghans, who at that period, and
up to comparatively modern times, were settled in Afghanistan, that is, east of
Ghaznin, and not in Ghir. The “first sovereign, Shams-u-Din,”’ of this so-
called ^“ Afghan dynasty ”—this ‘‘ chief of the Afghan tribe in the Ghor moun.
tains,” is, of course, no other than Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the founder
of the Kurat dynasty, referred to above. On the father’s side he was of Saljiik
Turk-man descent, and on the mother’s, of Ghiri, and also Maraghani, that
is of Gharji descent ; and if this mixture composes an ‘‘ Afghan of the Ghor
mountains” I need not say anything more. See note 1, page 508.

His capital and that of his successors in their fiefs, for they were merely
feudatories, was Hirat, and Ghaznin never belonged to them.

It is a pity that such statements should be disseminated, because they mis-
lead. I do not for one moment suppose but that Col. Malleson imagined that
what he was writing was strictly correct, or that he was aware what errors
he was putting his name to. These he would have avoided had he been able
to consult the original historians ; and he would have saved himself from falling
into terrible errors had he consulted even that small portion of this Tabakat
which is contained in Vol. II. of ELLioT’s HisTORIANS, in which the events
of the year 1249 A.D. will be found, as well as a portion of the history of the
Ghiiri dynasties.

1204 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of Shahan-Shahi, which is adjacent to the town of Neh,*
and he had retired defeated before them, and came to
Farah. Fear [of them] had overcome him; and, of the
men of note who were along with him, among those on
whom he was relying to proceed into the Kuhistan to
effect an accommodation, and make terms between him
and the ruler of the Kuhistan, the Muhtashim, Shams, not
one of them, the notables of his Court, was equal to under-
take the journey, until they acquainted him [Binal-Tigin]
with the news of the arrival of this votary, Minhaj-i-Saraj,
in the vicinity of Farah.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, despatched a led _ horse,
and a deputation of persons of note to receive him, and
call 71." When the author reached his presence, the
Malik made a request, saying: “It behoveth thee to do
the favour of effecting a peace, and to proceed into the
Kuhistan. The son of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-
i-- Usman,’ will accompany thee in this important enter-
prise—thou [wilt go] under the designation of an envoy,
and he, under the name of a mediator.” In conformity
with this solicitation, the author proceeded towards the
Kuhistan. The Mulahidahs were then before the town of
Neh; and, after having reached the confines of the Kuhis-
tan, it was necessary to come back again; and the author
proceeded to Neh, and the accommodation between Malik
Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, and the Mulahidah Muhtashim,
Shams, was effected.

When the author had returned from that journey, and
had again reached the presence of Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Binal-Tigin, the latter said: “It is necessary for thee to
go a second time, and demand war from the Mulahidah ;”
but this servant of the state did not consent to set out on
a second journey, as he had determined upon undertaking
a journey into Hindustan, and entertained a very great
predilection for this journey. This refusal on the part of
this votary did not meet with the approval of Malik Taj-ud-

® The Calcutta Printed Text, as usual, makes a pretty hash of this well-
known name.

॥ See the account pf the Rulers of Sijistin and Nimroz, pages 196 to 201.

2 The son here referred to is, doubtless, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad,
referred tu in the previous note &. :

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1205

Din, Binal-Tigin, and he commanded so that they detained
him [the author] for forty-three days in the fort of Safhed
of Sistan,? and prohibited his going beyond the walls, until
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-’Usman, of Khaesar—
may he rest in peace !—despatched letters from Ghir to
Malik Taj-ud-Din, ‘Binal-Tigin. The author, likewise,
composed a poem conformable with the case of his con-
finement ; and, by the favour of the Most High God, he
obtained his liberation from that fortress. Five verses of
that poem are here given that they may come under the
august observation of the SULTAN OF THE SULTANS OF
ISLAM, whose sovereignty be long prolonged! Amin.

‘** How long shall my crystal tears on the amber [like] face,
To the emerald spheres the coral hue impart ?
Since like unto smoke from Kumari wood 4 are my sighs,
It would not be astonishing were ye distilling rose-water, O tears !
In disposition, neither am I vicious, nor is evil found in me;
Why then am I a captive on the Safhed mount?
I am not the Si-murgh,® nor is this the mountain of Kaf—
For ever pleasing to the parrot captivity will not be.
Minhaj—The Straight Road *—is best onthe open highway :
The straight road he findeth not, through restraint the fortress within.”

The intermediate [portion of the] poem, and the entire
copy of it, 15 not in existence, and hence it is thus abridged.’
May the Almighty preserve the Nasiri dominion to the
utmost bounds of possibility !

I now return to the subject of the history.

In the territory of the Mulahidah there are one hundred
and five forts—seventy forts in the Kuhistan territory,®

$ The Calcutta Printed Text, which is “‘ so much to be depended on,” merely
turns this into the fort of Saf of Hindiistin—., bore cio ald instead of
pings ००“ sali

4 Wood brought from णाता or Kuméariin [Anglicized Comorin] used for
fumigation, also aloes, and gum benzoin.

5 The fabulous bird of eastern romance—the ’un4d or griffin. Its home is
the Koh-i-Kaf, which is supposed to surround the world.

6 Which Minh§j signifies—a play on his name.

7 Its loss is scarcely to be regretted, judging from the above specimen.

8 In Khurasin west of Hirat. The word comes from Kohistan, signifying a
mountainous tract of country. Our author has plainly indicated its where-
abouts : Ka-in was, and is, its chief town. Respecting Alamiit see note 8,
page 363. In the MASALIK WA MAMALIK it is said there is not any river
water throughout that tract, but this assertion is not quite correct, unless a
great change has taken place since that work was written: it is scarce,

1206 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and thirty-five in the hilly tract of Irak, which they call
Alamit. After the Mughal forces had occupied their
territory some time, and a great number of captives of that
sect had been slaughtered, the Maulana ° of the Mulahidah,
’Ala-ud-Din, Mahmid, son of Jalal-ud-Din, Hasan-i-Nau
Musalm4an, was assassinated by one among his personal
slaves,' in the fortress of Lanbah-Sar,7and the son of ’Ala-ud-
Din, Mahmid, came out of that stronghold and proceeded
to the Mughal camp. They despatched him, along with
his dependents and followers, to the presence of Mangii
Khan, and command was given to put him to death on
the way. All the forts of Mulhidistan were destroyed, and
the Mughals took their cities and towns and demolished
them, with the exception of the fort of Gird-Koh? which

certainly. These parts were, at the period in question, very populous and
flourishing.

9 The head of the sect who held both the temporal and spiritual power over
the Mulahidah, as previously mentioned at page 1189. '
1 Hasan, the Mazandaranf, at the end of Shawwal, in the year 653 H.
?Ala-ud-Din, Mahmiid’s son, was the Khudawand, Rukn-ud-Din, Khir Sbih,
who was quite a youth, mention of whom will be found in another note. Our
author is quite wrong here, and has, in his brevity, confused events. Lanbab-
sar was not taken possession of until long after Khir Shah came out of
Maimin-dujz, and went to Hulaki’s camp, the details of which will be found

farther on.

> Here the Printed Text turns this name into +न for +~)

> A few miles west of Damghan. Having marched from Kiighan [Khabi-
shan], Hulaki turned his face towards "Irak, and moved to Bustam and
Khurkan, and reached Bustim on the roth of Sha’ban. The हु गदा, Bak-
timish, the Bitik-chi, Zahir-ud-Din, and Shah Mir, who had been sent on 2
mission to Rukn-ud-Din, Khir Shah—with a copy of the farmdn, probably,
issued at Kash—rejoined him on the 29th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, on which same
day some of the fortresses were reached, and raids made upon the country
round. From Bustim, the Shabnah or Intendant of Hirat, Margatie, along
with Bak-timish [the Bak-Timir of Alfi, Takalmish of the Fanakati, and
Mankalmish of the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh and the Raugat-us-Safa] were again
despatched to Khir Shah with promises, stipulations, and menaces.

At this time, the Maulana-i-Sa’id, the Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din, the वृर,
and several other learned doctors, such as the Ra’is-ud-Daulah, and the
Muaffik-ul-’ Adal (-ud-Daulah ?], and their sons, were detained by Khir Shih,
against their will, according to the Shi’ahs, but the Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din,
was with Khir Shah for his own seditious purposes, as will be hereafter
plainly manifested ; and, influenced by him, the Khudawand, Rukn-ud-Dia,
Khir Shah, who was quite a boy, and had only recently succeeded his father,
and had been advised by those traitors to submit, treated the envoys well;
and, on dismissing them, sent with them his younger brother, Shahan-Spah,
with the Khwajah, Asil-ud-Din, the Zauzani, and other great men of his

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1207

lies between Khurasan and 'Irak. Up to this time, now

kingdom, to tender his submission, and to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
Mughal Ka’an. WHulaki received them, and treated them with honour, but
despatched Zahfr-ud-Din, the Bitik-chi, and two other men of note, to intimate
to Khir Shah that, if he, Khir Shah, spoke truly with respect to his obe-
dience and subjection, it behoved him to demolish his fortresses, and present
himself in the audience tent of Hulaki. Khiir Shah’s reply, on dismissing
them, was, that, whatever opposition his father may have displayed with regard
to the Mughal Court, he had himself evinced naught save servitude and obe-
dience ; and he gave orders, in the presence of the agents, to dismantle seve-
ral fortresses, such as Humiayiin-dujz, Alamit, Lanbah-Sar, and others, to
throw down the battlements, carry away the gates to a distance, and begin
to tear down the walls ; but, for himself, he requested a delay of one year,
after which he would present himself.

Hulakii perceived it was useless to send envoys again, and he therefore
directed all the Mughal troops that were in ’Irak and other parts to advance,
and close in upon the Mulahidah territory. Those on the right [Bustam being
the centre], in Mazandaran, were under Bika Timir and the Ni-yin, Kika
I-yalka, while those on the left, under Nikiidar A ghil, and the Nii-yin, Kaibika,
were to advance by way of Khwar—the name of a district or tract of country
in the neighbourhood of Rai—which signifies low or sloping ground, but
not necessarily ‘‘ salt””—and Simnan, while Hulaki himself, with one somdn
of picked troops, advanced from Bustim on the roth of Sha’ban, 654 H.
I would here remark, for geographical accuracy, that the name of this
place is written ple. and that the name “ Bostan’’—i.e. yl«—signifying
“० & flower garden,” under which name this place, famous in Persian history, -
appears in Colonel J. T. Walker’s map and Major O. B. St. John’s, is not
correct.

Hulaki, notwithstanding he had said he would send no more envoys,
again had recourse to negotiation, but, with the treachery inherent in the
Mughal, and in some other northem barbarians, sent to Khir Shah saying :
^“ Although our standards have advanced, and notwithstanding all the mis-
deeds he has been guilty of, if Khiir Shah presents himself, he will be received,
the past will be forgotten, and he will be exalted.” After the Mughals had
passed Firiiz-koh, the envoys again returned, accompanied by Khir Shah's
Wazir-i-Khas —Prime Minister—Kai-Kibad, to intimate that his master had
agreed to demolish all the fortresses. Khir Shah made, however, a special
request, that Alamiit and Lanbeh-Sar should be left to his offspring, since
they were the ancient homes of his family, and that he should be allowed a
year’s grace, to prepare certain presents and offerings worthy of the Mughal
sovereign’s acceptance, that the Muhtashims of Gird-Koh and the Kuhistin
had been directed to present themselves, and that, in the mean time, all the
other fortresses should be demolished. This temporizing was no match for the
duplicity and wiles of the Mughal barbarian, who was aware what a difficult
task he would have in order to capture the chief strongholds. Hulaki, still
moving forward towards Lar and Damawand, passed, by the way, Shah-dujg,
which was captured in two days; and, once more, he despatched his envoys.
Khiir Shah still refused to appear, but he notified that he would send his son,
with a body of 300 militia [as a contingent ?] and demolish all the fortresses.
His son came—a child of seven years old, whose mother was a concubine; but
Hulaki, who waited at ’Abbas-ahad of Rai to receive him, would not allow

1208 THE TABAKAT.1I-NASIRI.

that the year 658 H. has drawn to its close, it will be a

an infant to remain in his camp, and sent him back. Then, to carry out his
proposed treachery, Hulaki, in reply to Khir Shah, intimated that, in case
there should be further delay in appearing himself, he had better send another
of his brothers to relieve Shiahan-Shah, who had been so long in the Mughal
camp. Khir Shah then despatched another brother, Shahran-Shah—some
call him Sherwan Shah—along with the Khwajah, Asil-ud-Dfn, the Zauzani,
and 300 soldiers ; and, on the Sth of Shawwal, 654 H., they reached his camp
within the limits of Rai. Onthe oth, they were sent back bearing a safe-conduct
for Khir Shah himself, with a message to the effect that, in consequence of
the submission, and show of obedience of Khir Shah, the misdeeds of his
father had been forgiven, and, as no improper conduct had been shown by
himself, since he had succeeded his father, if he destroyed the fortresses as
promised, he might expect the royal favour. After sending off this—the
bearers filled with delight at the terms—Hulakii issued orders for the Mughal
troops to form a cordon round about Maimiin-dujz, the residence of Khir
Shah, which was carried out, particularly on the part of Bika Timi and
Kika I-yalka, who approached it very closely, from the side of Astadar—or
Astadarah—the same place as is mentioned in Jabah [Yamah] and Sahiidah’s
[Swidde’s] raid.

As soon as Khir Shah became cognizant of this suspicious proceeding, he
sent a person to the Mughals, saying: ‘‘ Since we have submitted, and are
occupied in demolishing our fortresses, what is the object of your advancing
into these parts?” By way of mockery they replied : ‘‘ Because we are friends
now, and there is no disagreement between us, we have come into your grazing
lands, in order that our horses may enjoy a few days’ rest, after which we
again depart.” On the 10th of Shawwal, the Mughals entered the Riid-barat
or Riid-baran [a district and town, between Gildn and Kazwin: it is the
plural of rizd-bar, and signifies a tract of many streams] by the Yashkal or Bash-
gal Dara’h or Pass, on the road to Tal-kan, and commenced plundering and
devastating the country round. On the 18th, the audience tent of Hulakii was
pitched facing Maimiin-dujz on the northern side ; and, the next day, he
reconnoitred the place preparatory to an attack ; and, the following day, the
troops completely encircled it, although the mountain, on which it is situated,
is six farsakhs in circuit. Hulakii, however, when he beheld that impregnable
fortress, saw that, to take it by storm, was utterly impossible, and that nothing
else than reduction by famine was possible, and that that might not be effected
for many years. He therefore held counsel with the Shah-zddahs and Amirs
whether to invest it, or retire, and return next year, as the season was far
advanced. Most of them were for retiring, as winter was come—it was
Shawwal, 654. —November, 1256 A. D.—the horses were emaciated, and forage
was scarcely obtainable, and would have to be brought from the frontier dis-
tricts of Kirman or Arman; but Buka-Timir, the Bitik-chi, Saif-ud-Din,
and Amir Kaibtika, the Nieman, on the contrary, urged, that to retire now
would be a show of weakness, and that, as a matter of necessity, they ought to
remain until the affair assumed some tangible shape or other. So Hulaki
again had recourse to duplicity, while traitors in the stronghold of the प
experienced Khir Shah helped its success : he despatched another envoy to
Khir Shah, with a message tending to seduce him, by hopes of favour, to
come down. The envoy said: ‘‘O Khir Shah! if, like a man, you come
down and present yourself, you not only preserve your own life, but also the

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. -1209

period of ten years that the investment of that fortress has

lives of all who are in this place with you. If, in the course of five days, you
do not come, then make your fortress strong, and expect an assault ; for this
is the last time that any one will come to you.” Rukn-ud-Din, Khir Shah,
seeing the state of affairs, held counsel with his chief men; and no way
appeared left open to him other than to surrender. On the same day that
this was determined on, he despatched, in advance of himself, another brother,
Shah Kiya, along with the traitor—as I shall presently show—the Khwajah,
Nasir-ud-Din, the Tiisi, and other officials and leaders of his forces, to the
presence of Hulaki, bearing presents and offerings befitting. On Friday, the
27th of Shawwéil, they reached his camp ; and, on Sunday, Ist of Zi-Ka’dah,
654 H.—12th November, 1256 A.D.—the Khudawand, Rukn-ud-Din, Khir
Shah, having taken 2 last farewell of his ancestral home of two hundred years,
accompanied by Asil-ud-Din, Zauzani, Mu’ayyid-ud-Din, the Wazir, and the
sons of the Ra’is-ud-Daulah, and Muaffik-ud-Daulah, the same day presented
himself in the camp of Hulaki, the Mughal. So, '‘ the strongly fortified town
of Meimundiz” was neither besieged, nor was ‘‘the attack prosecuted with
vigour,” because no attack was ever made, neither did ‘‘ Rokn-ud-din pro-
pose terms to Khulagu,” as we are informed in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” but
quite the contrary.

The traitor, Nagir-ud-Din, the Tiisi, composed a verse on this event, the
first Aalf of which, not quite correctly rendered, is given by Von Hammer,
who, in his account of the Isma’ilian, makes sad havoc among the names of
persons and places. ‘The verse is as follows, literally rendered :—

५८ When the ’Arab year six hundred, fifty, and four, came round,
On Sunday, the first of the month Zi-Ka’dah, at morning dawn,
Khiir Shah, Badshah of the Mulahidah, from his throne arose,
And, in front of the throne of Hulakii [Khan], stood up.”

When Khir Shih presented himself, Hulakii beheld a mere youth of in-
experience and indiscretion, and, therefore, according to the pro-Mughal
accounts, he treated him kindly, and gave him hopes of the Ka'an’s favour.
Khir Shah, at Hulakii’s request, despatched one of his chief men, entitled
Sadr-ud-Din, in order that all the fortresses which his father and forefathers
had obtained possession of, in the Kuhistan, the Rid-barat, and Kimis—a
district, or rather province, between Khurasan and ‘Irak-i-’Ajam—full of
military stores, magazines of provisions, and other valuable property, might
be delivered up to the Mughal officials ; and, by Hulakii’s command, they are
said to have been levelled with the ground—subsequently perhaps, as this
would be a work of time only : Hafiz Abrii says they amounted to some three
hundred ; all but Lambah-Sar and Gird-Koh—but the number was only a little
over a hundred—which the governors refused to give up, and which held out,
particularly the latter, for twenty years after, as already mentioned. Pestilence
at last broke out in Lambah-Sar, and most of its people perished. The rest
abandoned it, and the Mughals destroyed it.

The day after Khir Shah reached the Mughal camp, he gave orders to his
dependants to leave Maimiin-dujz; and his ancestral treasures, other valuable
property, and library, he presented [perforce] to Hulakti as a pesh-kash, the
whole of which Hulakit is said to have distributed among his officers. After
this the latter turned his face towards Alamiit. On reaching the foot of the
stronghoid, Khir Shah was sent forward to request the seneschal to come

4H

1210 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

been going on.‘ Within it about 100 or 200 men have

५ Not es ‘‘the third year of the siege,” as Von Hammer states: it held out
for nearly twenty years, and only then fell because pestilence had destroyed
nearly the whole of its defenders.

down and give it up, but that Sipah-Salar refused to listen to his words, and
gave him a rough and stern reply. Hulaki left a numerous force there to
invest it, but, after holding out for three or four days, the Sipah-Salar agreed
to surrender it, on the lives and property of all within being guaranteed. On
Monday, the 26th of Zi-Ka’dah, 654 H., it was given up. The people asked,
according to the terms of surrender, for three days’ grace to enable them to
remove their effects ; and, on the fourth day, the Mughals poured in, and
commenced to sack the fortress. The catapults on the walls were thrown
down and destroyed, the gates removed to a distance, and they began to
demolish the defences. On the following day Hulakii came up to inspect the
place, and much was he astonished at beholding that fortress and the moun-
tain on which it stands. ‘‘Alamiit is a mountain, which they have likened
unto a camel kneeling, with its neck stretched out upon the ground [between
a camel —z5—and a lion—,=—there is, in A/SS., but the difference of a
couple of points over and under, but there is a very material difference in
their significations, whatever Von Hammer may have said, for he must
have read it incorrectly or from a poor S.J. On the summit thereof,
which has but one path leading to it, a fortress was built of such prodigious
strength that the like of it has never yet been described. Within had been
excavated several reservoirs for storing vinegar, honey, and other drink-
ables— the word shardaé, in the original, does not necessarily mean wine or
intoxicating drinks—so that, after ubtaining possession of that stronghold, the
Mughals were diving into them—and must have come out in a very ‘sweet’
state from the reservoirs of honey—and finding various articles of property,
which the people, in their first alarm, had thrown into them,” but the Mughals
‘*in the subterranean chambers and cellars, searching for treasure, did not fall
into the wine and honey,” without knowing what was there, as erroneously stated
` छ Von Hammer, from a wrong reading probably. The greater part of the
contents of these magazines, which had been laid in during the time of Hasan-
i-Sabbah, remained unchanged ; and his followers, the Isma‘ilis, attribute this
to the sanctity of his blessing.

The subsequent fate of Khiir Shah may be related in a few words. By the
early part of 655 H., all the Mulahidah strongholds in the Kuhistan and गै
i-’Ajam, with the exception of Lanbah-Sar and Gird-Koh, were in the hands
of the Mughals, but those in Sham had yet to be gained possession of. Hu,
lakii, consequently, continued to treat Khir Shah well, and induced him to
send his messengers along with Mughal officials into Sham, to request the
governors to give them up, whereby they would obtain favour, or otherwise
bring down ruin upon the whole of the sect. पा Shah had also become
enamoured, it is said by the orthodox Musalmins, the enemies of the sect, of
a base-born Mughal’s daughter, and, the matter becoming notorious, Hulaki,
on the occasion of the great Shi’ah festival of the ’Ashiira, bestowed favours
upon Khiir Shah on the last day of the festival, the roth of Muharram, 655 Ha
and, among these favours, made him a present of the Mughal damsel. The
idea that ^" A/sudagw” would not have scrupled to have put him to death

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1211

taken refuge, but, up.to this time, it has not fallen into the
hands of the Mughals.*

* The I. 0. L. MS., No. 1951, the Ro. As Soc. 2.9. , and the Bodleian
MS.—all three—have an interpolation here relating to the death of Mangi
Ka’an in Chin, the same as occurs at page 1223, thus showing that they are
copies of the same original, or that the two last are copies of the first AS.

^ because he had lately married a Mongol woman of low extraction,” is absurd,
and also that a ‘‘ solemn marviage was ordered.” The round-faced, ugly
wench was bestowed upon him in the same way as a horse or a slave would be
given ; but some say that Khiir Shah actually asked Hulakii for her.

Hulaki had solemnly promised not to harm Khir Shah, hence he was well
pleased when the latter, who found his promises of favour were all empty
ones, asked to be sent to the presence of Mangi Ka’an ; still, as the fortresses
of Shim had not yet been secured, he would have kept him in play a little
longer. However, as Khiir Shah was desirous of going, he despatched him,
but took care to detain his offspring, females, and dependants, at Kazwin, and
only the Mughal concubine was allowed to accompany him. He was desired
to obtain the surrender of Gird-Koh by the way ; and, although Khir Shah,
outwardly, in the presence of his Mughal guardians, did request its commander
{० surrender, he had before sent secretly to tell him on no account to give it up,
as it had been prophesied that in, or by means of, that fortress, their sect would
again flourish, The commandant, consequently, refused to surrender, and
gave a fierce answer, so the Mughals had to proceed on their road unsuccess-
ful. Khir Shah is said to have quarrelled with his conductors after passing
the Amiiiah, and it is added that they came to fisticuffs ; and this want of dig-
nity on his part made him very contemptible in the sight of the Mughals. His
death is differently related. Some say he reached Mangii’s presence, but the
Fanakati and Hafiz Abrii say that the truth is that, when he had arrived in
the vicinity of Kara-Kuram, Mangii Ka'an commanded that he should be put
to death. This, the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh states is the truth, but Rashid-ud-Din
does not say that Mangii was at Kara-Kuram. These writers, however, appear
to have forgotten that the Ka’an was in Chin at this time, and never re-
turned to Kara-Kuram again.

Mangi’’s instructions to his brother were, not even to spare a child of a year
old of the race of Kiy4-i-Buzurg-Umid; so, during the absence of that unfor-
tunate Prince, Hulakii gave orders to slay the whole of them, and ‘neither
young nor old were spared; and, of a family, which, for one hundred and
seventy odd years, had reigned in [-ran-Zamin, not a vestige or trace
° remained.”

In Alfi, however, it is stated that a number of Khir Shah's offspring and =
relations were made over to Salghin Khatiin, Chaghataée Khan’s daughter,
that she might, according to the law of retaliation, shed their blood, in order to
avenge her father who had been killed by Isma’ili Fida-is. See note ५, page
1148.

After this Hulaki—with the treachery inherent in the Mughal race—issued
commands to the Amirs in Khurasdn to assemble together, by stratagem, the
whole of the Kuhistani Isma’flis, and extirpate them, so that not a trace of
them might be left. Under pretence of a general levy of fighting men, for the
purpose of invading Hindistan, numbers came in from all the towns and

4H 2

1212 . THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE MISFORTUNE WHICH HAPPENED
TO THE MUHTASHIM, SHAMS-UD-DIN.

This account is derived from a recluse among the re-
cluses of Islam, who is worthy of credit, and is here recorded
in order that it may come under the observation of the
Sultan of Islam.

This servant of the victorious empire, Minhaj-i-Saraj,
who is the author of this TABAKAT, on the first occasion
that he chanced to undertake a journey into the Kuhistan,
and saw the Muhtashim, Shihab, the Hakim, the friend
of the Musalmans, saw, in his presence, a recluse, an aged
man of Nishapir, who was one among the esteemed of
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and his mother, the
Malikah-i-Jahan—on whom be the Almighty’s mercy !—
and, during the time of that monarch and his mother, he
enjoyed their intimacy and esteem. This recluse used
clandestinely to take care of the interests of the Muhtashim,
Shihab, before the Sultan's throne,® and was wont to show
honour towards his emissaries ; and, such of their important
affairs as used to be before the Court, he would get brought
to a successful termination.

When the misfortunes [attending the irruption] of the
Chingiz Khan arose, and the people of Khwarazm, of the

५ The later Mulahidah were tributary to the Sultans of this dynasty, and
had been for some time. See note ‘, page 254.

villages of that territory ; and the Mughals thus succeeded in trapping 12,000
Isma’ilis, the whole of whom were massacred. Towachis [Pursuivants or
Tipstaffs] were also sent out into every part of the Kuhistan with instructions
to kill the heretics wherever they could be found, and all who might aid of
shelter them ; and they are said to have been ‘‘ wholly exterminated.”

They were not however, for, in 674 H., twenty years after Khiir Shah sur-
rendered, in the reign of Hulakii’s successor, a body of Mulabidah, having `
combined with a son of the late Khir Shah, and assigned him the title of
“the Nau Daulat,” seized the fortress of Alamiit ; and their outbreak assumed
a serious aspect. Abakde Khan sent an army against them, which overthrew
them ; and the fortress of Alamiit was razed to the ground.

In the present day we hear of a claimant to the spiritual office of this sect,
as a descendant of the last of the Mulahidah, and, I believe, Magazine articles
have even been written on the subject.

Hulakii’s mind being now entirely set at rest respecting the Mulabidah, he
turned his attention to further ‘‘ ameliorations ”—the capture of Baghdad, our
author's account of which will be found farther on.

IRRUPTION OF THE. INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1213

capital, and of Khurasan, became dispersed, this recluse,
for those reasons [above referred to], threw himself into
the Kuhistan ; and, on account of previous obligations,
the Muhtashim, Shihab, the Hakim, was under towards
him, this recluse obtained great favour with him, and
received abundant honour and reverence. On the Muhta-
shim, Shihab, being removed from the government of the
Kuhistan, and his proceeding to Alamit, when the Muhta-
shim, Shams, arrived, this recluse did not obtain the same
respect from him ; and, as he was not on terms of intimacy
with the Muhtashim, Shams, the absence of Shihab greatly
affected the heart of the recluse. He desired, in order to
perform the debt of gratitude [he owed] to the Muhtashim,
3010389, to take vengeance upon this Muhtashim, Shams,
who was the displacer of the former, and thereby attain,
for himself, the felicity of martyrdom, and also perform an
act of holy warfare [upon an infidel].

One day he entered the place of audience of the Muhta-
shim, Shams, and represented, saying: “It is necessary to
give me a private audience. I have important business,
which I will communicate in private.’ The Muhtashim,
Shams, had his audience hall cleared, but the recluse said :
“I am not satisfied to proceed lest it should so happen
that I might be in the middle of my statement and an
interloper might enter, and the matter be interrupted. If
the Muhtashim will direct that I may fasten the door of
the audience hal] on the inside, my heart will be freed
from that fear.’ The Muhtashim replied: “It will be
well: it is necessary to put the chain across the door of
the audience hall on the inside.” The honest [!] recluse
got up, and fastened the door on the inside, and came and
seated himself down in front of the Muhtashim. It was
an habitual custom with that Muhtashim constantly to
have a finely-tempered 4274 7 poniard in his hand.
Sometimes he would place it at his side, sometimes before
him, and sometimes he would take it in his hand.

The recluse turned his face towards the Muhtashim, and
said: “I suffer tyranny in thy city and territory. Why

? A species of Damascened steel held in great estimation : also the damasked
water of a sword.

1214 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

have they placed this poniard in thy hand? [5 it not] for
this purpose that thou shouldst ward off tyranny and
violence from the weak and oppressed? Give the weapon
into my hand that I may see whether it be sharp or not.”
The Muhtashim, inadvertently, the recluse being an infirm
old man, and thinking that from him no mischief would
arise, gave the poniard into the Darwesh’s hand. The
latter seized it, struck at the Muhtashim, and inflicted
upon him several severe wounds, in such a manner that
his body was wounded in several places. It was the
winter season, and the Muhtashim wore two garments of
hair [cloth], one over the other; and, the recluse being
old and infirm, the wounds proved not so very deep. Had
the recluse been young, and had it been the summer
season, without doubt, the Muhtashim would have gone to
hell. Notwithstanding he was wounded, he got up, seized
the wound-inflicting recluse, and cried out for assistance.
A number of Mulahidahs were in the vestibule of the place
of audience, and they burst open the door, and came in,
and martyred the recluse—the Almighty reward him!

A cry now arose in the city of Tiin;° and the Muli-
hidahs conspired against the Musalmans to put those poor
unfortunates to death, but the Muhtashim promptly directed
so that they issued a proclamation, to the effect that
no Musalman should be hurt in the least, since it would
not be right to slay all the Musalmans through the act
of one individual. During that short period of tumult,
however, an eminent Imam, and learned man, whom they
used to call Imam Najm-ud-Din-i-Sarbari, the Rimi,
attained martyrdom, because a Mulhid was at enmity with
him, but of the rest of the Musalmans not one suffered any
molestation. Subsequently, command was given so that
they impaled the Mulhid who had killed the Imam.

The object in {relating} this incident was this, that it is
essential that sovereigns should ever be circumspect and
vigilant, and should never leave [their] arms out of their
own possession, and should not place confidence in any
one.

8 At page 1197, he says he saw him at Ka-in, which was the seat of govern-

ment, but this, it appears, took place at Tiin. It is not contained in all copies:
only in the best ones.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1215

I now return to the thread of this History.

When they placed Mangii Khan upon the throne, he
conferred the dominion of I-ran and ’Ajam upon his
younger brother, Hulakii; and another younger brother,
named Kubilan,’ after he had returned from the conquest
of ’Irak,' he installed over the tribes of Turkistan, and a
third brother, Artuk* Bikah, he placed as his deputy over
the kingdoms of Tamghaj.* He [Mangii] then assembled
a numerous army, and marched into the country of
Chin,‘ and reached a place where the horses of his forces,

9 At page 1177, our author styles him Kubila—s—and here Kubilan—
oAs—as above, the letter ‘n,’ apparently, being nasal, as in many other
words, The Calcutta Printed Text here turns him into Kilin—,\§ The
name is written rather differently by other authors, as with many other names,
particularly with the addition ofa final y often found in these words—Kubilie.
The letter ‘k’—j—which is the first in his name, is turned into ‘Kh’ in the
book so often referred to herein, which is equivalent to ¢ or but any one
who understands a single letter of Oriental tongues knows that ‘‘ Khubilai” is
as impossible as ‘‘ Khulagu” for Hulaki, and is incorrect, whatever the
‘*Mongol” Professors may say. The Chinese, who spoil all foreign proper
names, style him ‘‘ Hf-pi-lay.”’

1 This is a great mistake : we should read Khitae for "Irak. Kubilde was
never sent into Irak on any expedition, and was never in that country in his
life. He is said to have been in Kifchak in Oktde’s reign. The services on
which he was sent in Mangii’s reign have been already mentioned.

> The Printed Text mistakes this name too, and has Irak or Arak—j,!—for
Irtuk—,j5,|—and sends Irtuk, sometimes written Artuk, Bika into Chin,
whereas he was left in charge of the great srd#s at Kara-Kuram of Kalir-an.

ॐ Tamghij has already been referred to in a previous note,

५ As I have briefly referred to the principal events in the lives of the pre-
ceding Mughal sovereigns, I will here relate, even at the risk of being considered
rather too diffuse, the other chief events in Mangii Ka’an’s reign, in order to
complete the notice of him, and will compare it with the Chinese accounts, as
the names of countries, places, and persons, are so widely different, and as, in
other matters, considerable discrepancy occurs, and numerous errors exist.

In the year 651 H., which commenced on the 2nd of March, 1253 a.D.,
Mangi, being well established on the throne, determined upon making fresh
conquests in the east and west, or rather, to speak more correctly than the
Oriental chronicles of these events, to secure possession of the countries which
had been but partially subdued. Accordingly, in this, the second year of his
accession, Mangii made a great feast or banquet at the ancient y#rat of the
Chingiz Khan. After it was over he nominated his youngest brother, Hulaki,
to march into I-rin-Zamin, some of whose proceedings have been already
described, and his middle brother, Kubilae, into the countries of the east ; and
the Ko-yang, Miikalf, the Jala-ir, was despatched along with him [as his guide
and preceptor]. This well-known leader’s title is not ‘‘Guyaneg.” Ko-ying,
the name the Khita-fs called him by, signifies great and trustworthy.

After they had set out from Kara-Kuram, with the army, by the direct route,

2216 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
through the insalubrity of the climate, and want of forage,

apparently, they found grain and forage excessively scarce. They accordingly
despatched information to the K4a’an, stating that it would be impossible to
proceed by that route, and asked permission to march by another road into
Kara-Jang [elle 15]. This is the tract of country which Ragshid-ud-Din,
quoting Al-Biriinf, mentions. After noticing Diw-gir and the Ma’abar in the
Dakhan of Hind, he says: ‘‘There is also anather large territory which is
Gandhar, and called by the Mughals Kara-Jang or Hamil [न], and its
people are descended from Hindi and Khita-i [parents]. In the reign of Kubi-
lae Ka’an it was subdued by the Mughals. On one side it joins Tibbat, on
another, the frontier of Khitde, and on the third, Hind. Learned men have
said that the people of three different countries are particularly celebrated for
three different things : Hind for its numerous armies, the territory of Gandhar
for its elephants beyond computation, and the Turks for horses.”

I have previously narrated the Fanakati’s account of the geography of some
of these parts [see note », page 912], and the names of various countries of
Khitae, Chin, and Maha-Chin, but it will be well to mention what refers to
this very tract under discussion again, as great discrepancy exists with regard
to the mode of writing the name of it. The Fanakati says: ‘To the S. W. of
Khitie is another country, which they—the people of it—style Dae-liti [949
—in one A/S. written ’Dae-ki—Sislo], and the Mughals call it Gandhar [ ps5
—another M/S. has Gandah-har—sa5]. This country with us—the writer's
native country, Mawara-un-Nahr, and Turkistan—is known as Kandhar [५4]
It lies between Hind and Tibbat, and in one half of it the people are black
{dark], and in the other half, white [fair]. The Mughals call all this white
half Chaghan-Jang [eile lee], and the other Kara-Jang.

It is doubtful what the meaning of Jang is, in fact it is very doubtful what is
the correct word, for it is written Wl—eile_—ehbl.—ele—and eile which
may be read in various ways, but if one take the first form—elile— in which per-
haps it is chiefly written, it may be read, in the absence of vowel points, Janak,
Janag, Jank, or Jang ; and from its being used with chaghan and kara, which
are Turkish words for white and black, it must, without doubt, be Turkish
likewise. I am doubtful, however, whether the last form given above—eul_—
Jamak, is not, after all, the correct word. I have taken some trouble to
search it out in several works, and am sorry that there should still remain any
doubt upon it. ।
एण from comparison, we arrive at some other facts. The Fanakati and
some others say, that, east of Khitde, the Chin of the Hindiis, and Jakiit of the
Mughals, inclining south-east, is an extensive country called Manzi [\s;—it is
also written in some A/SS. (see and .g;~—and sometimes, by the Fanakati
also, 19५ or \52] by the Chinese, Maha-Chin by the Hindiis, and ~WG—
Tingnash by the Mughals.

This latter name too, as I have previously remarked, is written in so many
different ways that it is difficult to determine which is the most correct. It is
written ¥*\%53—Tingnish—in several very correctly and carefully written
MSS., also LSS Tingbish—*Q—Biktash, »\%5—Tingtash, U-bG—
Tingnas, and the like, but I believe, after all, that the way in which it 1s
written in the ‘‘ Nuhgat-ul-Kuliib ” is the correct one, namely, .-\%i—Ningias,
or “2 %3—Ningiish. This country is said, by the Fanakati and others, to be
separated from Khitae or Chin by the Kara Miir-in or Black River, that its
capital was Khiinsade [५.9] or Khunsie [yo], that i és also called Kari-

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1217
were perishing. He despatched swift messengers into Tur-

Jang by the Mughals, and Dae-liii in the language of Khitae—that is, by the
Chinese. Consequently, from these various statements, Ningaish or Tingnash
is the Kara and (गढ) Jang and the Gandhir of the Mughals, which con-
titute the Manzi and Dae-lit' of the Chinese, the Maha-Chin of the Hindis,
and Kandhar of the Musalmins of Turkistan and Mawara-un-Nahr.

I now return, after this necessary digression, to the request of the Ko-yang,
Mikali, to enter this territory of Kari-Jang, or whatever it may be. His
request was complied with, and he entered that territory with his forces,
plundered it, and obtained what his troops were in want of. I notice, in
ELLIOT, vol. 1, page 63, that ‘‘Waihind, capital of Kandahar, west of the
Sind,” is said to be called ‘‘ Karajang”’ by the ‘‘Moghals.” This is a /:tle
out of the way, and must be an error certainly.

This army under Kubilae and Mikali was ‘‘to enter Khitae [which nearly
all historians say was finally subdued in Uktae’s reign, and that the Altan
Khan disappeared or hung himself. See note at page 1139], Kara-Jang, Tibbat
[=5—doubtful: the word is written -s—.3—and c»,'], Tingkit, Solika
or Sulika [५५७], Koli [.J,5], and parts of Hind which adjoin Chin and
Maha-Chin.”

The Chinese say that “ Mengko,” as they style Mangi, made his brother
H4-pi-lay, governor of all the territories south of the great Kobi or Desert,
that is, Tartary bordering on the Great Wall of China, Lyan-tong, and the
conquered provinces of China. In Decr., 1252 a.p. [Shawwéal, the tenth
month of 650 H.], Hfi-pi-lay was directed to attack Tai-li-FQ in Yun-nan, and
took along with him the general Hf-lyang-hotay [Mikali?], and Yanshi
{Mahmid, Yalwaij ?].

About the same time envoys arrived at the urd# from Int or Hinttis [Hind],
to render homage. This was about the very time that Malik Sher Khan-i-
Sunkar, the cousin of Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam, left his fief of Tabarhindah, with-
drew from Hind, and proceeded to the presence of Mangii Ka’in. See pages
695, 784, 792, 798, and note +, page 1223.

In the same year—650 H.— Mangii Ka’an began to consider in what direction
he should himself lead an army, and, therefore, he held another great feast at
which the Shah-zidahs and Amirs appeared. This was held at a place called
एग पता Jiwan [७१ 59353,95}-the Jidan [७५] doubtless, referred to in note १,
page 912, para. 4—which is situated in the middle of Mughalistan. This is
the place where, according to tradition, Kitiblah Khan, the eighth of the Bi-
zanjar dynasty [see the note on the descent of the Turks, Tattars, and
Mughals, page 896, para. 6], and his followers, danced so much in the hollow
of a tree, after he had obtained success over the Tattars, and the Altin Khan’s
forces, when he avenged his brother, Ukin-Barkak’s death.

At this feast, Mangii was advised by Darkae, the Gurgin [one of the sons-
in-law of the Chingiz Kbin], an Amir of the tribe of Angiras-Kungkiir-at
Mughals, to invade Tingnash or Biktash [Ningaish]. Diarkde added, as a
reason for invading it, that it was near by, was 6247, that is to say here, unre-
duced and independent, and that it had hitherto been disregarded by them.
This was not correct, however, if, as previously mentioned, the Mughals call
this Tingnash or Biktash by the name of Kar4-Jang, for that was invaded and
plundered by the Mughal troops under Kubilie and Mikali, the Ko-yang, just
before.

Mangii Ka’an, in reply to this advice, remarked, that each of his uncles and

1218 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
kistan and Mawara-un-Nahr, and called for horses for his

brothers had subdued some country or other, and he would do the same [he
had already done so in the campaigns in the west under Batti Khan, but before
he succeeded to the throne], so, in the sixth year of his reign, in Muharram,
652 H.—February, 1254 A.D.—he determined to go to war with Tehukan
[possibly, Tehitkang], the Faghfiir—the particular title given by Mubammadan
writers to the ruler of Chin, but what language it is, is not said. Mangi
accordingly left Artiik—or Artiigh—sometimes written Irtik and Irtigh—
Bikah, his next younger brother, in charge of the s/sses and srdss, and asso-
ciated with him his eldest son, whose name is written in many ways equally un-
certain—_s&,,|—Aormaktish, 9 Aorangtish, and ULG,)I—A

but, as he makes no figure whatever in history, it is immaterial.

Respecting these events, the Chinese say that, in February, 1253 A.D. [the
last month of the year650 H. The year 651 प्त, commenced on the 2nd March,
1253 A.D.], ‘‘Mengko” assembled the Princes and Grandees at the river
Onon, and determined upon sending armies to make further foreign conquests,
‘Sone into India and Kashmir, another into Korea, and a third against the
Khalifah,” which was to be the most numerous, under his brother ‘“‘ Hya-
le hQ” [Hulaki]. Among the generals was ‘‘ Kakan [the Manjanfk-chi ध
son of Ko-chey, son of Ko-pan-yu,” who were generals of the Chingiz Khan,
a native of Ching, dependent on Wha-chew, in the district of Si-gan-Fé,
capital of Shen-si, a very learned man.

‘* Hd-pi-lay ” [Kubilae] had assembled his forces the previous year [1252
A.D.—649-50 H.], at Lin-tau-F a, in Shen-si, entered Sew-chwen, and, by
difficult roads, through mountains and by precipices, reached the river Kin-sha
or Kyang. At this period, great part of Yun-nan was ruled by Princes inde-
pendent of China. Tali had a king of its own, and he was taken, with that
city, in December of that year. ‘‘ Hf-pi-lay”’ subdued several neighbouring
Princes, and reached Tibbat, where several others submitted to him. After
this he returned to his government, leaving Hii-lyang-hotay [the Ko-yang,
Mikali ?] in command.

Again, in 1254 A.D. [652 H., which commenced on the 20th Feby., 1254}
the Chinese writers state that ‘‘ Mengko” again assembled the Princes and
Grandees at the source of the river Onon, made many new regulations, and
ordered the commanders of troops in China to lay in great magazines of pro-
visions in such parts of Ho-nan as had walled cities. Hitherto the Mughals
had only made incursions into Sew-chwen to pillage, and had often to retreat,
and, many times with loss, for want of subsistence [as in Kubilae’s case, to
which this evidently refers], and ‘‘ Mengko” directed the general Wang-te-
ching, son of Wang-shi-hyen, to inclose several towns, and lay in stores of
provision.

In June, 1256 A.D. [this would be the beginning of Rajab, the seventh month
of the year 654 H.], another great feast was held, and ‘‘ Mengko”’ received the
homage of several Princes of Yun-nan, as well as of neighbouring Princes
and Sultans of the west.

Then it is related that ‘‘ Mengko considered the srd# at or near Kara-Kuram
was inconvenient for holding 4érilédes and keeping his Court; and so he
directed a Chinese Bonza, named Lyew-ping-chong, to select a place in Tartay,
which might henceforth be the capital of his dominions. Ping-ching, who was
aman of great learning and of scientific attainments, made choice of a place,
to the east of the city of Whan-chew, called Long-kang ; and there a city was

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1219
army. Trustworth rsons related, on this wise, that his
DA y pe

built, which was called Kay-ping-F fl, and, afterwards, Shang-tfi: yet Kara-
Kuram [although neither a city nor town] still continued to enjoy a jurisdiction
of greater extent ’— it was still the as/ y#rat of the Chingiz Khan.

The foundation of this place therefore has been wrongly ascribed to Kubilie,
who founded Khin-Baligh, instead of to ‘‘Mengko,” but that it was more
convenient, as to position, than the vicinity of Kara-Kuram, and Kaliir-dn, is
absurd, unless for the convenience of his eastern subjects and dominions alone.
There may have been another reason, and an important one. Kara-Kuram
depended a great deal on provisions brought from a long distance, and, should
supplies, by any chance, have been cut off, famine would have arisen, as was
subsequently proved.

This new capital, ‘‘ Kay-ping-Fu,” afterwards ‘‘ Shang-td,” is apparently the
Shandu, and Ciandu of Polo, ‘‘Xandu” in Ramusio, and ‘‘ Ions” of Hayton.
** It stood,” it is stated, ‘‘in the country of Karchin on the river ‘‘ Shan-tf,”
N.N.E. of Pekin, and “seems to be,”’ says a writer in ASTLEY’S ‘‘ COLLECTION,”
** Chau-nayman-sama, which is one of three ruins marked in the Missioners’
map, on the river Shangtii.” Hayton calls it lons. ‘‘ Passing out of the
gate, Hi-fong-kew in Pe-che-li, you find yourself in Karchin, Ohan, Naman
{Ndaeman], and Korchin. It is divided into ten standards ; and the country of
the Mughals of Korchin extends to the Sira Miur-dn—the great river Sira.
Mir-an in the Mughal language signifies a great river, and 22/24 a smaller one.”

To continue the Chinese accounts before returning to the Mughal records

quoted by the Musalman writers, in whose time the Mughals. had to a con-
siderable extent become Musalmians likewise, they say that, in 1257 A.D. [the
year 655 H. began on the 18th January, 1257 A.D. ], ‘‘ Mengko”’ sent orders
to his generals in Se.chwen, Hu-quang, and Kyang-nan, to prepare to attack
the Song [empire] on all sides, resolving to begin himself with the first, that is
to say, Se-chwen, which therefore is equivalent with Tingnash [Ningaish] of
the Musalman writers, Maha-Chin of the Hindiis, and Manzi of the Chinese,
as described by the Fanakatf and others. After the month of July [the seventh
month of 655 H.] he appointed his brother, Alip(-ko [Irtik or Irtigh Bikah),
in charge at Karé-Kuram.” There issome discrepancy between the Musalman
and Chinese dates, because he was appointed in the first month of 652 H., as
before mentioned. ‘‘ Jn the same month, Mengko” set out, reached the moun-
tain of ‘‘ Lewpan in Shen-si,” where the Chingiz Khan died [which place, as
stated before at page 1087, was situated on the frontier of Tinygnash, or
Ningaish, and Khirjah]. He was scarcely arrived there when he understood
his brother Ha-pi-lay, with his family, and without any attendance, in the
manner ofa criminal, had come, in order to submit himself to the Ka’an. This
news so affected ‘‘Mengko” that the suspicions he entertained against him
were removed and he was completely forgiven.” I shall refer to this matter
presently.

‘* Hi-pi-lay ” was directed by *‘ Mengko”’ to return to his government, and
prepare for the siege of Vi-chang-FA, the capital of Hfi-quang, then to march
to Hang-chew, the metropolis of Che-kyang, and the empire of the Sang ; and
the general Chang-jau was nominated to command under him.

I will now return to the Mughal accounts from where I left off, when, early
in 652 H.—about March or April, 1254 A.D.—Mangii appointed [तच Biikah
to remain in charge of the great urd#s and u/usis, along with his eldest son,
but some say his son Serki.

1220 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
lieutenants and governors, who were in Turkistan and Ma-

To enumerate all the names, and give all the details, respecting those Shah-
2242118, Amirs, and troops, which accompanied him, and the preparations
made, would occupy far more space than can be afforded here : at some future
time I hope to do so. Suffice it to say that they included a great number of
Shah-zadahs, Amirs, and forces, both of the Dast-i-Chap—the left hand—and
Dast-i-Rast—the right hand—which latter they style [i.e. the territory they
occupy] Jaikit or Jakiit. which signifies the forces of Khitide, Tingkit,
Khirjah, and Siikanka [\Cs,..], because the Mughals, in their dialect, used
to call those parts Jaikiit or Jakiit. The army of Mangi Ka’an amounted, it
is said, to the immense number of 600,000, one half of which belonged to the
Dast-i-Chap, and whose leader was the Shah-zadah, Taghachéar [there is no
such name 25 ° 7kugatshur”}], son of U-Tigin, the younger brother of the
Chingiz Khan.

As Mangii issued forth on his way, he received the news of the death of the
Ni-yin, Belkitde, half brother of the Chingiz Khan, who had attained the age
of 110 years, and who had done good service in the latter’s time. Mangii also
received an account of his brother Kubilae’s movements with his forces ; and
that, as Kubilae, at this time, was indisposed—he was afflicted with gout, or
dard-i-pae—if he were allowed to take repose for a time, it would be well.
Kubilae was permitted, accordingly, to return to his srd#s, as a temporary
measure, to get better.

This evidently is what the Chinese histories refer to as a disagreement between
the brothers, and Kubilae’s being suspected, and forgiven, but the Musalmin
writers never so much as hint at anything of the kind, and the two accounts
are wholly contrary to each other. Although Kubilae had permission to retire
to his wrd#s he did not do so, but again returned to his post. It was at this
time likewise, that Shiramiin, who was not to be trusted, was put to death
before Kubilae departed. Perhaps it is this incident that the Chinese writers
got hold of.

Having set out, in the summer of 653 H.—about June, 1255 a.D.—Mangi
reached the boundaries of the territories of Tingkiit and Tingnash or Biktash
[Ningaish], at the place named Afwan or ^ पदि Shan [७८८ y!55|—it was Lewak
Shan—y\* Usd before. See note, page 1088], within the confines of Tingnash
or Biktash [Ningaish], which is the place where the Chingiz Khan died.

Towards the latter part of the year he moved forward for the purpose of
attacking the Masiil [9] Kahlukah or Pass, and forced it. With little
effort he subsequently captured twenty fortresses, and subdued a territory known
25 Khan-Sindan [७1५ yie—in one copy of Alfi the first word is Jan—yle}
and, having taken possession of the whole of it, turned his face towards a great
fortress (a fortified city] called Mili Sang [4 91.

There is considerable discrepancy with regard to the name of this place,
caused by the careless copying of scribes, and the facilities which the Arabic
characters offer for making mistakes when carelessly written. In the best
written copies of Alfiand the Fanakati, respectively, it is Mili-Sang, as above,
and Doli-Shang [els ८93], while in other copies of the former, and in other
works, it is ey. geek gse—and eb, ५9 without points. The place in
question is the Ho-chew of the Chinese historians, and Ho-chew or Ko-chew
of the Jesuits’ map.

Before setting out into those parts, he had despatched the Nii-yin, Taghachir,
with a numerous army, by way of the great river called Ka’an Ling [et ८१)

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1221

wara-un-Nahr, in a very short space of time—less than

that he might reduce to submission the fortified cities of Fang-ching [~ Wb]
—the words are without points, and may be meant for Mang[l]-ching—
and Mang-Fin[y ५५]. Taghachar reached the foot of that furtress [the last
mentioned place], and invested it for a week, but, during that time, having
obtained no sign of success, he marched away, and returned to his own urdiis.
Mangt Ka’an was excessively wroth at this proceeding, and vowed he would
punish Taghachar in such a way that others should take example therefrom,
but he did not live to do so.

The place before which Mangti Ka’an sat down in 654 H., was, according
to the Habib-us-Siyar, “a fortified mountain of prodigious height and circuit,
and furnished with all things necessary to withstand an enemy. Winter came
and passed, and spring set in, and the summer of 655 H. arrived [the summer
of 1257 A.D.]. The excessive heat brought on a pestilence among the troops,
and most of his army perished. Mangii, who, for a long period, had been
investing this strong place, took to drinking deeply, in order to ward off the
danger of catching the disease, but his health gave way in consequence, and he
was taken ill, and died eight days after, in Mubharram—-the first month—of
656 H. [about the middle of January, 1258 a.D.] on the banks of the Kobighah
Mir-an [७ s4e295], after a reign of eight years.” The circumstances related by
our author, although very brief, contain some interesting particulars respecting
these events, which no authors I have been quoting mention.

There is considerable discrepancy, too, and some doubt, concerning the date
of Mangii’s death.

410, and its authorities, the Raugat-ug-Safa, the Fanakati, and the Muntakhab-
ut-Tawarikh, say it happened in 655 H. The Habib-us-Siyar says it took
place in 654 H., while Guzidah and Fagih-i say it was in 657 H., and that he
reigned nine years, and was forty-eight—some say forty-six—when he died.
The Fanakati says his reign was six years and two months.

The last of these dates—657 H.—is undoubtedly correct, because his brother,
Hulaki, in Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 655 H., sent Khir Shah, Badshah of the Muli-
hidah, to his camp, after obtaining possession of Alamit ; and, by Mangia Ka’an’s
command, he was put to death by the way. Mangii, therefore, could not pos-
sibly have died in 654 H., nor in the first month of 655 प्र, Another proof is that
Hulaki sent the news to Mangii of the capture of Baghdad, and the murder
of the last Khalifah, together with an account of events which had happened
in ’Irak in 656 H., and which news reached him. Therefore, allowing for the
immense distance which separated the brothers, the first month of 657 H.—
January, 1259 4.17. - 15, evidently, the more correct date. Our author, who
finished his history in the fifth month of 658 H.—about the end of February,
1260 A.D.—appears to have very recently become aware of his death by report.

I must now give the Chinese version of these events for the sake of
comparison. ^ Hi-lyang-hotay”’ having made conquests in the countries
bordering on ‘‘ Yun-nan,” subsequent to his subjugation of Tibbat in 1 255 A.D
—653 H.—penetrated as far as ‘‘Tong-king,” and ‘‘Kochin-China,” then
comprehended under the name of ‘‘ Gan-nan,” ruined its capital, and plundered
the country. He was returning to ‘‘Tali,’? when ^ Mengko” ordered him
to join ^^ Hi-pi-lay ” in the siege of Va-chang-Fa [capital of the province of
H(-quang].

‘* Mengko’s” forces entered ‘‘ Se-chwen’”’ in three bodies, each in a different
direction. As soon as the army passed the mountain of ‘‘ Li-pan” [this is

1222 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
one week—purchased 80,000 horses from Samrkand and

the Chinese name for the place where the Chingiz Khan died], ‘‘ Po-li-cha,” &
great Tartar [Mughal] lord, was appointed to command the first body, Mu-ko,
the Ka’an’s brother, the second, while ‘*‘ Mengko ” commanded the third, and
took the route of Han-chong-Ffi in Shen-si. He was vigorously opposed by
the troops of the Song in Se-chwen. ‘‘ Mengko” now sent on, in advance,
Nyew-lyen of the Chanchu tribe, whose father and grandfather were greatly
renowned in the army, in the beginning of the year 1250—656 H.—to obtain
information. He learnt that Ata-hf, the Mughal general in Ching-ti-F a, was
in great extremity, being invested on all sides by the Song. He, Nyew-lyen,
having reached Ho-chew, resolved to succour Ata-h, but his efforts were of
no avail, for the Song took it, and Ata-hfi died. Nyew-lyen, now grown
despefate from want of success, posted himself between the Song army and
Ching-t, to which he immediately marched, and soon after succeeded in
gaining possession of it. Finding that the Ka’an had reached Kang-chong-Fa,
he left the city in charge of another officer, moved to 900, and sent forces to
facilitate ‘‘ Mengko’s” passage of the river Kyan-lin by a bridge of boats
The other two bodies of troops having rejoined him, Long-gan-Fii was
captured, and Lan-chew [now Pau-ning-F i] surrendered. The general Hi-
lyang-hotay entered China, on his return from Gan-nan, by Tung-quin, moved
forward to Quang-si, and seized Quey-lin-F(, the capital of that province.
The Chinese were surprised to find him penetrate as far as Chang-sha, a city of
Hu-quang, which he invested in the beginning of 1259 A.D., equivalent to the
first month of 657 H., which ended on December 16th of that year, and which
completely agrees with the year given in Guzidah.

On the first day of the same year, 1259 A.D.—the 28th of December began
the year 657 H.—‘‘ Mengko” reached the mountain Chong-quey, where the
Chalar [Jala-fr], To-whan, affirmed that the war in Se-chwen would turn out
unfortunate from heat and moisture, which would destroy the troops, and
advised a retreat. Pa-li-che, the Orla [Arlat], said that To-whan spoke thus
through fear, and advised the Ka’an to continue the campaign ; so ‘‘ Mengko”
determined to continue the war, and to invest Ho-chew, which he accordingly
did in February. Nyew-lyen advanced to co-operate with him, and constructed
a bridge of boats near F{i-cheu-F 0, while another leader went and took up a
position near Quey-chew, on the borders of Ha-quang. An attack was
repulsed on Ho-chew in February, another in March, while, in April, there
was thunder and rain for twenty days. One day, however, the Mughals
succeeded in scaling the walls, and made great slaughter among the defenders,
but they were finally repulsed. A Chinese general attacked the raft bridge,
at Fa-cheu-F@, and got to Kon-chin-Fé, eight leagues S.S.E. of Ho-chew,
collected 1000 barques to ascend to Kya-ling [Kyan-lin?], but was attacked by
a Mughal force, and pursued to Chong-king. The Mughals were, however,
still much harassed by disease, want, and sallies. In July ‘‘ Mengko” resolved
to assault it with his best troops, and carry it at any cost. On the roth of
August the Ka’an visited the. works, and gave orders for scaling the walls the
following night. The Mughals gained the top of the walls, but were repulsed
with great slaughter, and even pursued. ‘‘ Mengko,” in desperation, now
ordered a general assault, and went in person to direct it. A storm arose at
the time, and during the attack several ladders were blown down. On this, @
fearful carnage ensued ; vast numbers of the Mughals perished, and among
them was the Ka’in, whose body was found pierced with many wounds

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1223

Bukhara, and, adding them to those which they had pur-

chased in Upper Turkistan, despatched them [to Mangii
Khan’s army].

They also related, that, after some time, the king of
Chin brought such an immense army, as cannot come
within the compass of number or computation, and, in the
end, Mangi Khan, and his army, were overthrown, and
reached a mountain [range] round about [nearly] the
whole of which range was the sea, and morass ; and, in

that mountain [range], Mangi Khan, with the whole of
the Mughal army, perished from famine.
The reign of Mangii Khan was nine years.’

Thus fell ‘‘ Mengko,” at the age of fifty-two, after a reign of nine years.
Such is the Chinese account, which is very different from that of the
Mughals.

To return to the Mughal accounts. Mangii’s son, Asiitae Aghiil, leaving
the Nii-yin, Kand-kae— s4us3—in command of the troops, took up the coffin
of his father, and conveyed it to his srdzzs [the wrdus of his four wives] ; and,
for four days successively, they made mourning for the late Ka’in. The first
day in the srdi# of Kunkie [5&5] Khatiin, who was also called Koludi [७5],
and Koliidi [595], the daughter of the Gurgin or son-in-law of the Chingiz
Khan, 0146, scn of Barti, of the Angiras tribe. This Khatiin had born
Mangii two sons, the eldest, Baltii, and the youngest [he is said previously to
have been Mangii’s eldest] Aormaktagh, Aorangtagh, or Aorangias, and one
daughter, Mayaliin by name.

The second day, the corpse was removed to the नवद of Tuwaw-chin [८9151]
who is also called Tanaw-chin [erst], and Tira-chin [७215], but all these
Names are more or less doubtful, of the tribe of Bayadit. She bore him a
son, Serki, also written Sherki, previously alluded to.

On the third day it was conveyed to the व of Ughil-Kifimish Khitin,
the Uir-at, who had accompanied him on this expedition. She was of the
family of his mother, Sitr-Kikibi Bigi, and was a woman of strong mind
and force of character. At first she had been betrothed to Mangii’s father.
She used to style Kubilie and Hulaki, her husband’s brothers, ‘‘/arsands,” or
sons, and they paid her great respect. She bore no son, but had two daughters,

On the fourth day the corpse was taken to the व of Kasa [LS]
Khatiin. She was of the tribe of Ijikiah or Iljikin, an offshoot of the Kungk-
ur-ats, and bore him a son named Asitae, previously mentioned.

The first and third Khatiins were free born : the two others were handmaids,
but there were many others of lesser note. On each day, in each urd, the
cofin was placed upon a throne, and they made lamentation over the corpse.
After the mourning ceremonies, the body of the Ka’an was buried at the place
called Balkan or Biirkin—‘1’ and ‘r’ being interchangeable—Kaldiin, which
is styled the Yakah Kurik, that is to say, ‘‘ the exclusively prohibited [spot],”
at the side of the Chingiz Khan, and (तासं or Tuli Khan, his grandfather
and father.

५ Our author has forgotten to notice, or would not notice, a remarkable

1224 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
May Almighty God prolong the reign of the present

matter concerning the Dihli kingdom, which happened in the reign of his
patron, and during the reign of Mangu Ka’an.

Early in 646 H., Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, the e/aer bruther, it must
be remembered, of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah, who had hitherto
been feudatory of Kinnauj, was made feudatory of Sanbhal and Buda’in, this
last being one of the most important fiefs of the Dihli empire, but, withgut
proceeding thither, he became frightened at something which our author
conceals, and fled, by way of Sihnur, towards Lohor [see pages 684 and 818].
His flight may have been caused through fear or suspicion of Ulugh Khan, in
whose hands the whole power now centred, and who very shortly after
married his daughter to the Sultan. What Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah,
subsequently did, or whither he went, is also made a profound mystery of.
Lohor, too, is mentioned at this period in connexion with him, after its never
being once mentioned since its capture and sack by the Mughals, in 639 H.,
when it was lost to Dihli.

A few months after this Prince’s flight, in the eighth month of the same
year, we find the Sultan moving with his forces as far as the river Biah—which
then flowed in its old bed—and his marching back again, but why he marched,
and what his army did, is not mentioned anywhere by our author, but it was,
without doubt, connected, in some way, with his brother's flight.

Again, in 650 H., the Sultan set out, intending to march to Uchchah and
Multan [pages 692 and 825], but only reached the banks of the Biah when
the Rayhani plot broke out [pages 693 and 826], and Ulugh Khan was
banished to his fiefs. This was in 651 H. Nothing more is mentioned about
Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, until 662 H., when we find him, in com-
bination, with Ulugh Khan, and other Maliks, advancing towards the capital,
in order, it would seem, merely to upset the Rayhani faction; and then our
author says [page 830], that the Sultan’s brother ‘‘came from the side of
Lohor,” but where he had been all this time, from 646 to 652 H., is not
allowed to transpire. In another place [page 700], however, it seems that
more than the upsetting of the Rayhanf faction was intended, for we are told
that ‘‘a party of Amirs now interposed Jefween the two personages’’—the
Sultan and his brother—and after, that ‘‘ Lohor decame the fief—not that the
Sultan conferred it—of Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah.” Inanother place
[page 793], we are told that Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar, who had left Hind
and gone into Turkistan, to the क्र of Mangii Ka’an [see note 8, page 1198],
returned with honour from thence, and went to Lohor, and joined the Prince
[Jalal-ud-Din] there, but that disagreements arose between them, and the
Prince ‘‘retired in disappointment, and his dependents and followers fell into
the hands of Malik Sher Khian’s train.” From this time Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id
Shah, disappears from the scene, and is heard of no more.

Fortunately a few others throw some light on what our author keeps so dark.
Among them the Fanakati says, that several of the great Mamliiks of the late
Sultan, I-yal-timish, rebelled against his son, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id
Shah, and set up another in his place, as though he had been actually reigning.
He says, in fact, that Raziyyat was set up by Ulugh Khan, but the date he
afterwards gives, which is quite correct, shows that he has confused the names
a little, and refers to Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, whom he afterwards men-
tions as having been set up by Ulugh Khan. Then he continues :—“ Malik
Jalal-ud-Din fled from Hind, and, in 651 H., presented himself in the rd of

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1225

Sultan of Islam to the end of the existence of mankind,
and preserve the Khan-i-A’zam, Ulugh Khan, in power
and authority, to the end of the world! Amin.‘

VIIIL— HULAKU, SON OF TOLI, SON OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN.
Hulakii’ is the brother of Mangii Khan, and Tili [his

Mangu Ka’an, and Kutlugh Khan [this may be Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid
Shah’s step-father who afterwards caused such trouble, as he was in Hind up to
near the close of 655 H.], and Sunkar [Sher Khan-i-Sunkar. He did leave his
hef and retire into Turkistan at this very time, in 649—650 H. See pages 695
and 792], out of fear of Ulugh Khan, followed Malik Jalal-ud-Din. Mangi
Ka’an commanded that a befitting grant should be assigned to the latter, and a
yarligk was issued to the Nii-yin, Sali, then in those parts [in the tracts on the
Indus, and as far east as the Biah—the present Panj-ab], to aid him with histroops.
Malik Jalal-ud-Din returned therefore, and he was permitted to take possession
of the districts of Luhawiir [Lahor], Kiichah [also written Kijah—s..S—-and
always mentioned in connexion with Banian. See pages 627 and 750], and
Siidharah, which parts were then subject to the Mughals, and thus he contented
himself with a little out of much.”

Rubruquis, curiously enough, confirms the above. He says that about the
150) of June, 1254 A.D.—about the fourth month of 652 H.—when the Ka’an
held a great assembly at Kara-Kuram, at which a number of ambassadors
attended, he noticed the ambassador from the Sultan of India. This could be
no other than Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah, and his party, or Sher Khan-
i-Sunkar, for it is quite certain that no ambassador was ever sent from
India by Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah. They brought with them, as a pre-
sent, eight leopards, and ten hounds for coursing, which were taught to sit on
the horses’ buttocks. The same traveller also says he returned for six weeks
the same road westward, along with this very ambassador, and then he struck
off to the left—the east. It is a pity he has not mentioned the ambassador’s
hame,

That this account is correct is without doubt, from what our author allows to
escape him. Well might he say that Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’ id Shah,
‘“‘advanced from the side of Lohor,” that ‘‘some of the Amirs interposed
between the two personages,” and that ‘‘ Lohor became his fief.” The early
history of the kingdom of Dihli has yet to be written. The history of 2
country is not to be rendered correctly from the accounts of a single author,
or single extracts from two or three authors merely. See also pages 793, 862,
and 863.

५ I hope this is a sufficient proof to show that this work was written in
Sultin Nagir-ud-Din’s reign, and not in that of his successor, although, like
much more, it is not contained in the Calcutta Printed Text.

T I need not tell the Oriental scholar, who can vezd the letters of the Persian
alphabet for himself, that the first letter of this name is simple A—S3a—Hu-
lakii, the only variations of which are—y9ge—Hiilakiiysf de—Hulakiie, and
$¥e—Hula’i, as our author sometimes writes it; but, for the information of
those who cannot read the original for themselves, and have to trust to trans-
lations, second-hand, or mere compilations from the works of foreign translators

4 1

1226 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

father] was the youngest of the Chingiz Khan's sons.
When the Chingiz Khan crossed the Jihiin into Khurasan,
he despatched Tili towards Nishapir, Hirat, and Marw;
and Tili took all those cities, and destroyed them. Trust-
worthy persons related, that Tali was a good-looking youth ;
and, when he returned from Khurasan to Turkistan, he
died, leaving four sons,® as has been previously recorded.

When Mangii Khan, son of Tili, ascended the throne,
he despatched Hulakii into the countries of I-ran and ’Ajam,
and assigned those territories to him; and the armies
which were in ’Irak, and the troops which were in Turkis-
tan, Khatlan, Tae-kan,® and Kunduz, and the forces which
were in the territories of Ghur, Khurasan, Hirat, and the
Garmsir, were all directed to obey the command of Hulaki.
On Hulaki’s entering Khurasian he chose Badghais’ as
his head-quarters ; and the Maliks of the different parts of
*Ajam presented themselves before him.

The Mughal army of Jurmaghin, which was in ‘Irak,
was continually fighting and carrying on hostilities with
the troops of the Lord of the Faithful, but, on no occasion,
and in no wise, was it able to gain the superiority over the
forces of the Khalifah’s capital ; and the infidels used con-
tinually to be defeated, more particularly in their attempts
to take the city of Safahan [Isfahan]. It occupied the
infidels fifteen years before they were able to gain posses-
sion of that city. If the Kazi of Safahan had not attained

of various nationalities, whose meanings and words too may have been पाञ्चा,
derstood, I must remark [for some one to explain to them] that to produce
५० Khulagu” the word must be written S39 or 9° Ne or 99 OF 9° Iya which no
one has ever yet seen written—not even a Schiefner in ‘‘ Mongol.” Quartre-
mére spells it Houlagu, and Von Hammer, Hulaku. How D’Ohsson may
spell it I am unaware, as I have not seen his work, but, however it may be,
the first two letters are 4u, and not £4. See also ‘‘ Mongols Proper,”
page 193. ;

He left eight sons, but Mangii, Kubilae, Hulaki, and Artuk Bika, were the
best known among them.

9 Tae-kan of Tukhiristan is undoubtedly meant here, which is in the same
territory 85 Kunduz.

1 The Pro- Mughal writers say—as previously mentioned—that he was obliged
to remain all the winter of 652 H. in the district or territory of Shiwargban, a
tract of country then in a much more flourishing condition than now. Badghais
too was a flourishing district, and within a short distance of Hirat and its fruit-
ful and formerly populous, but recently devastated, territory, of which it was,
and is, adependency. Our author’s statement here is the more likely of the two.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1227

martyrdom, the infidels would not have found it possible
to take that place, for the army of Jurmaghin, and the
Ni-yin, Khaina,’ for a period of fifteeri years, continued
to carry on hostilities, and to wage war before the gate of
that city and its environs. During this entire period of
time, the people of Safahan kept the city gates open, so
that, night and day, the gates used not to be closed ; and,
through the great valour and spirit of the holy warriors of
Safahan, the Mughals did not have the power of entering
the city, until a party of powerful renegades seduced an
individual from the right path to assassinate the Kazi,
saying: “It is necessary to kill the Kazi because the
trouble and annoyance of defending the city is caused by
him.” After they had martyred the Kazi the city was
taken.

When, inthe year 655 H., the Amir-i-’Alam [Lord of the
Standard] of the rightful Khalifah, Al-Musta’sim ‘ B’illah,
the Lord of the Faithful—God reward him !—-whose name
was Suliman Shah, the Aiyibi Turk-man—on whom be
the mercy of the Almighty !—entered ‘Irak with the
troops of the Khilafat, he defeated the Mughal forces which
were in the territory of Azarbaijan, and in ’Irak, and sent
great numbers of Mughals to hell, so that the Mughal
troops were unable to stand before Suliman Shah, and the
forces of the Khalifah’s dominions. They [the Mughals]

> This name does not occur in the other works I have been quoting. It is
written in several different ways— wi) be— ८ - yg le— yps— ८9 ७-
and even ५ The doings of Jurmaghiin are not given in any detail by the
Pro-Mughal writers, because there were no successes to record ; and Isfahan
is never once mentioned from the time of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, up to this period,
‘an interval of twenty-seven years, which is significant.

3 Lord of the Standard, equivalent to the Gonfalonier under the Popes,
in the middle ages. The Amir-i-’Alam commanded the troops of the
Khilafat.

4 The text, in every instance, has (५०1 -- Al-Mu’tasim—and in several other
works, including the Raugat-us-Safa, the name is thus written, but the majority
of others have »s~e!| as above, which is correct.

$ After Hulaki had finished with the Isma’ilis in the Kuhistan and Alamit,he
set out towards Lanbah-Sar, but, finding it was not likely to be soon taken,
left a considerable force to invest it, under Ta-ir Bika, and marched towards
Kazwin, whither his and other families had been sent, and encamped within
seven leagues of it, on the 27th of Zi-Hijjah, 654 H. Subsequently, in Rabi’-
ul-Awwal, 655 H., he moved from the vicinity of Kazwin, and marched to
Hamadan, where the Nii-yin, Tanjii, the Baisiit, from Agarbaijan, presented

412

1228 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

despatched swift messengers to Hulaki, in Khurasan, and
sought aid from him. Hulakii got ready the forces of
Khurasan, both Mughal and others, and determined to
march into Irak, and set out towards it.

ACCOUNT OF THE FALL OF THE CAPITAL OF THE
KHILAFAT.

When Hulakii set out towards ‘Irak, the Malik of
Mausil, whom they were wont to style Badr-ud-Din-i-Li-
lai ‘—on whom be the Almighty’s curse!—had consented
to receive a Mughal Shahnah [Intendant]. The Ata-
bak, Abi-Bikr,’ son of Sa’d, ruler of Fars, likewise had a
Shahnah, and had agreed to pay tribute to the Mughals ;

himself. Hulaki was not well disposed towards that great leader, on account
of some reflection he had made, and he had therefore summoned Tanji to his
presence. He said to him: ‘Since thou hast been occupying the place of
Jurmaghin, what hast thou done? what ranks hast thou broken? what rebel
hast thou reduced to submission? and what enemy hast thou made a friend?”
Tanji bent the knee, and replied: ‘‘ During this period of time I have
committed no fault, and what was in the power of my hand to do, in that I
have not been sparing of myself. Among other things I have taken a certain
fortress and a certain town, and cleared all the tracts between Rai and Rim
and Sham ; but, in consequence of the difficulty of the road to Baghdad, and
the great number of the troops of the Khilafat, in the neighbourhood of that
city, the Mughal troops have been guarded from disaster; and now the
sovereign has the option and power of commanding whatever he may please.”
The fire of Hulakii’s ire cooled on his hearing these words, and he said to
Tanjui : ‘‘It behoveth thee to proceed towards the frontiers of Sham and Rum,
and that thou shouldst subdue them, as far even as the sea of Maghrib [some
say, to the sea of Yiinan].” Tanjii accepted -this task; and, the very
same day, set out towards Riim, into which he carried slaughter and devasta-
tion. Farther on it is stated that he was recalled, and, while on the march,
directed to move against Baghdad. Early in Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 655 H.—
April, 1257 A.D.—Hulakii prepared to invade ’Irak-i-’Arab, and attack Bagh-
dad. He first turned towards Tabriz, and reached it on the 12th of Rajab.
Having remained there one month and a half, during which the Mughals
carried fire and sword into Kurdistan, he again turned towards Hamadan,
which—the neighbourhood of which—he reached on the toth of Ramayan.
His camp was formed in the open country about Hamadan, near to Khanah-
abad, ‘‘which is a verdant plain of Kurdistan,” and there he began to get
ready his forces for the coming struggle. It was from this place that he
despatched his envoys with an insolent message to the Khalifah, which will
be referred to farther on.

$ Amir Badr-ud-Din, Abi-l-Fazail-i-Lili, who was originally an Armani
[Armenian] slave.

7 See page 180.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1229

and from both of these rulers bodies of cavalry arrived to
the assistance of the infidel army. The infidel forces
gathered around Hulaki in Irak, and turned their faces
towards Baghdad.

The Lord of the Faithful, Al-Musta’sim 23112), had a
Wazrtr, a rafizi [a shi’ah heretic] of bad religion, and his
name was Ahmad, the ’Alkami.® Between him, the
Wazzir, and the eldest son of the Lord of the Faithful, who

क »Alkamah is the name of acity in Afrikah, or Mauritania, and the name
of aman. It is also the coloquintida, and is used to signify anything very
bitter. ’Alkami here refers to a native of ’Alkamah.

Mu’ayyid-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of ’Abd-ul-Malik, the ’Alkami, at the
time of Al-Musta’sim’s accession to the Khilafat, held the office of Ustid-i-
Dar, and was suspected, by many, but not by the Khalifah himself, of being
much against his accession, and of wishing to have set up the Khalifah’s
brother instead. In 642 H., the Wazir, Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, a very
aged man, was removed from office, and Ibn ’Alkami was installed as his
successor, a most unfortunate act, and the chief cause of the downfall of the
९01129६.

The new Wazir was an eloquent man, of vast attainments, and who, in the
composition of poetry and prose, had no equal. He was generous and liberal,
and clever in the administration of state affairs. In this office he had no
partner or associate, and the government was under his entire control ; but he
was a Shi’ah in faith, and thus an enemy to the house of Abbas. He did not
consider that the other officials of the Court paid him that respect and attention
which he thought he was entitled to; and, by inuendo, they were wont to -
reproach and rail at him asa heretic. The Khalifah was cognizant of all this,
and used to prohibit them from behaving in such a way towards the Wazir;
nevertheless, he nourished in his heart hatred towards the Khalifah, his family,
and the rest of his Court ; but he took good care to conceal it so that not a
soul suspected what was contained within his heart. Matters went on in this
manner until the eldest son [by some writers, the brother] of the Khalifah,
the Amir, Abi-Bikr, who, through his father’s weakness of character, had been
permitted to assume to himself the protectorship of the orthodox Sunnis,
with more zeal than was perhaps advisable, despatched a body of troops to the
suburb of Karkh of Baghdad, which was known as the mahallah of the
Shi’ah’s of the Ahl-i-Bait, to quell a serious disturbance which had broken out
there between the Shi’ahs and Sunnis, the Shi’ahs having killed a number of
the Bani Hashim dwelling in the same suburb. In doing this, the Amir, Abi-

Bikr, was severe, and allowed his men to treat the Shi’ah women as though they
were the women of infidels captured in war, carrying them seated before them
on their horses, through the bazars of Baghdad, bare-headed and bare-footed.
When the Wazir became aware of this, the bridle of his heart’s secret nearly
escaped his grasp, and, in his rage, he vowed within himself, that, even if he
perished in the attempt, he would wreak revenge upon all Sunnis for this act
of the Khalifah’s son.

Day and night he pondered the matter in his mind, and communed within
himself, and deliberated how best he could bring about the destruction of his
benefactor, his family, and the Sunni people. At this time he discovered that

1230 : THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
was named Amir Abi-Bikr, enmity had arisen on account

Hulakii Khin, after having completed the downfall of the Mulahidahs, had
been commissioned to invade ’Irak-i-’Arab, and reduce the Khalifah. Con-
sidering this a great piece of good luck, the Wazir resolved to profit by it.
He forthwith set to work to render the design of the Mughals successful, and
enable them to gain possession of Baghdad without trouble and without delay,
by opening communication with Hulaki, and giving him all the information
he could. ।

He accordingly represented to the Khalifah saying: "वश्या God, the
Lord of the Faithful this day is at peace with all the different rulers. All of
them are loyal and subservient to him; and, at all times, they pray for his
prosperity and security, and in no way desire to encounter the forces of the
Khildfat. In truth, the Khalifah is without rival and without adversary.
Now it seems contrary to forethought and prudence, under these circumstances,
that such an expenditure should go on every year from the treasury for the
payment of so many troops ; and, if the Lord of the Faithful will permit, I
will despatch the various officers of the troops to different localities in the
Khalifah’s dominions on civil duties, and the troops may be disbanded,
whereby a great advantage will accrue to the finances, and a vast deal of
treasure be saved.” This sounds like modern stump-oratory.

At this time, 124,000 efficient cavalry were kept up by the Khalifah, and
paid out of his treasury, without counting the contingents of the vassals of the
Khilafat ; and the unfortunate Khalifah, in his love of wealth, considering all
this was for his advantage, permitted the traitor to carry out his scheme. After
a short time this was completed, and the capital almost denuded of troops.
The traitor now communicated again with Hulakii, and despatched an agent
secretly, expressing his sincerity and loyalty, and urging upon him that he
. should, on no account, give up the attempt to subdue ’Irak-i-’Arab, and capture
Baghdad, which could easily be accomplished, and that his services were at
his entire disposal. Notwithstanding the proofs and arguments he gave in his
communication, Hulaki, for some time, did not place much faith in the
traitor’s words, but, when Ibn ’Alkami continued to send communications, and
to importune him on the subject, Hulakii consulted with another traitor—the
Kbwajah, Nasir-ud-Din, the Tisi, who had, by this time, gained complete
ascendancy over him, and a high position in Hulakii’s confidence and service.
He, being one of the great ’"Ulama of the Shi’ah sect, and having his own
private revenge to satisfy by the downfall of the ’Abbasis, entered into the
conspiracy with zeal, especially after Ibn ’Alkami had communicated direct
with himself also. The Khwajah pretended that it was necessary to consult
the aspect of the stars before determining on the campaign, and this he was
directed by Hulakii todo. His report may be imagined: he stated that he
had carefully carried out his observations, that the result was favourable, and
that it was predicted that the time was at hand for the Khalifah, Musta'sim, to
be made captive, and that Baghdad and ’Irak-i-’Arab would be subdued by
his servants, without much trouble or difficulty.

Hulaki’s first move was to despatch his envoys to the Court of the Khalifah
with an insolent and arrogant message, on the roth of Ramagian, 655 प.
upbraiding him for not having rendered aid, which he accused the Kbalifah of
having promised, in the operations against the Mulabidahs, and of falsehood in
consequence. His insolence was, no doubt, the greater, knowing that the
Kahalifah’s own Wazir was his friend and ally. The threats of the barbariat

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1231

of the despoiling of the réfiizs who inhabited Karkh, and

and his demands were, among other matters, that the Khalifah should beware
of manifesting impotent rage, and should neither strike his fist against an iron
spike, nor attempt to plaster over the sun with mud mortar, otherwise he would
deeply regret it, and sovereignty would turn away its face from him. ‘‘Our
advice is,’’ he said, ‘‘that thou shouldst demolish the defences of Baghdad,
fill up the ditch, make over the direction of state affairs to thy son, and present
thyself before us, in order that thou mayest dwell in safety from the wrath of
God. If thou art not coming thyself, send thy Wazir, the Sar Dawat-Dar, and
Suliman Shah—the two latter, especially the last, were the mainstay of the
state, and chief obstacle in the traitors way—in order that our messages,
without detriment or addition, may reach thee ; for, if thou dost not give thine
ear to our friendly exhorta‘ions and advice, get thy forces ready, and prepare
for war ; for we have girded up our loins to fight with thee, and are ready.
Further understand, that, when we shall reach Baghdad, whether thou art in
the heavens above or in the earth beneath, they will bring to thee our
preremptory command, which is like unto fate’s.”

The Khalifah’s reply, transmitted through his own envoys, a mixture of
admonition, boasting, and defiance, concluded: ‘‘ Listen, young man, there-
fore, to the admonition we have given thee, and retain it in thy mind ; and go
back again whence thou camest, otherwise prepare for war and come.” The
Mughal envoys, on their return, were met outside the city by a great mob, who
insulted and reviled them, and even spat upon them, in hopes that the Mughal
envoys might do or say something which they might turn into a pretext for
laying violent hands upon them. Here again was an opportunity for the
Wazir: hearing of the disturbance, he, at once, despatched a body of his
household slaves to guard the envoys, and conduct them safely out of the
danger ; and they, on their return to Hulaki’s camp, related all the good
offices of the Wazir on the occasion.

The Khalifah’s envoys, on the other hand, were angrily dismissed, with
fresh threats, from the halting-place of Panj-Angusht ; and their report of
what they had seen and heard made the Khalifah feel anxious and downhearted.
He consulted with his Wazir, whose traitorous conduct was, of course, wholly
unknown to him. He advised that the Khalifah should make use of the
great wealth he possessed, and endeavour, by means of it, to ward off this
calamity, and that liberal presents should be sent. For the Khan, a thousand
bales of the finest fabrics, such as silk, fine linen, cloth, and other valuable
wares and commodities, a thousand dati [hairy, double-humped] camels,
and a thousand fine’Arab horses, caparisoned befittingly ; and, for the Mughal
Shah-zadahs and great Amirs, presents suitable to their rank and degrees.

The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh puts a piece upon this, in order to flatter his Mughal
patron no doubt, and says that the Wazir—who, according to his account,
was an innocent lamb—advised that the Khalifah, his master, ‘‘should make
apologies ” to the barbarian, Hulaki, ‘‘ insert his name in the Khutbah, and
stamp the coin with his name ;** that the Khalifah was willing to do this, but
that Mujahid-ud-Din, and others, with whom the author of that work associates
all the knaves and vagabonds of Baghdad, “ out of animosity to the Wazir,
prevented it.”” That city, however, is not the only place where traitors have
taxed patriots, who would not sacrifice ‘‘ their countries’ interests,” with owing
their influence to the support of knaves and villains, which terms were, at the
same time, alone applicable to themselves.

1232 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

the Mash-had ° of Miisa-i-Ja’far—God reward him!—and the
son of the Lord of the Faithful, the Amir, Abi-Bikr, had
slain some of them, and despoiled them. Out of revenge
for this, the Wazir of the Khalifah’s Court, who was a rafisi
of bad religion, showed hostility towards the Lord of the
Faithful; and, in secret, and clandestinely, he wrote a
letter to Hulaki, and entered into collusion with him, and
besought the infidels to advance. The Kurd troops, and
forces of Irak,’ by way of dismissing them, he [the Wazir]
sent away from Baghdad, in different directions, and re-
presented on this wise to the Lord of the Faithful, saying:
—‘‘A peace has been entered into with the infidels, and
we have no need of troops.” After Baghdad became
denuded of troops, suddenly, the infidel Mughals arrived
in its environs.

They had taken forcible possession of a bridge [of boats]
from the Malik of Mausil, and fixed it so as to command
Baghdad, and then passed the Dijlah [Tigris]. The for-
tress [fortified town] of Takrit [above Baghdad] was an

At first, the Khalifah was inclined to follow the Wazir’s advice, and gave him
instructions to prepare the presents, but, had they been sent, no good result
would have arisen. The Sar Dawat-Dar [Head or Chief Ink-bearer, or Chief
Secretary, as he may be called, and, by some writers, styled the Dawat-Dar-i-
Kichak, or Under-Ink-bearer, or Secretary], Mujahid-ud-Din, I-bak, was
hostile to the Wazir, Ibn ’Alkami—he knew the Wazir was a traitor—and
represented to the Khalifah, saying : ‘“ Between the Wazir and the Khwajah,
Nasir-ud-Din, Tisi, the chief adviser of Hulaki, the most perfect understanding
exists ; and he, in consequence of identity of religious belief, always desired
the ruin of the house of "Abbas. Nowthe Wazir wishes, for his own purposes,
to make it appear to Hulakii that he is, personally, loyally inclined towards
bim, and so he gives this advice, and also in order to cast the other Amin,
and the soldiers of the Khilafat, into trouble and calamity.” A number of
other officials, who were not well inclined towards Ibn ’Alkami, also supported
the Sar Dawat-Dar in this view ; and they influenced the Khalifah against
adopting the Wazir’s advice. The Sar Dawat-Dar further advised that the
disbanded troops should be forthwith recalled and concentrated, and the
defences of the city made secure. It was now too late, however; and the
weak and unfortunate Khalifah was still unconvinced of the diabolic wickedness
of the Wazir.

9 Mash-had—a tomb, a place of martyrdom. The city in Khurisan, which
appears in the maps under the meaningless name of Afeshed, is the Mash-had
of another of the Muhammadan saints.

1 The Calcutta Printed Text invariably turns the Kurds into 3 and here,
instead of the Kurd troops and forces of ’Irak, we have ‘‘/ashkar-hde gird
bar [which is redundant] gird-i-’/rak—the forces which were round about
Trak.”

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1233

excessively strong place ; and the holy-warriors of Takrit
issued forth, and set fire to the bridge of boats, but, the

following day, the Mughals again repaired the bridge, and
martyred the Musalmans,’

The son of the Lord of the Faithful, Amir Abi-Bikr,
and the Amir-i-’Alam [Lord of the Standard] of the
Khilafat, Suliman Shah, the Aiyabi Turk-man—who for
a period of thirty years had wielded the sword against the
Mughal infidels, and had achieved many holy expeditions
[against them], as by the canons of the faith enjoined—
these two [personages], in concert, on several occasions,
had attacked the infidels, and overthrew the Mughal troops.°
On the first occasion, they drove the Mughals from the
environs of Baghdad, and pursued them as far as Safahan
[Isfahan], and despatched many of the infidel army to
hell. This Amir-i--Alam of the Khilafat, Suliman Shah,

? Part of the garrison of Takrit: the fighting men of the city and fortress,
This affair is again referred to farther on.

3 This is quite true, notwithstanding the note by the learned Sub-Editors of
the Calcutta Printed Text, noticed at page 711. On this subject the Tarikh-
i-Alfi, Raugat-us-Safa, and others, say that it is quite correct, for, in the
beginning of the reign of Uktae Ka’an, Jurmaghiin, who was one of the
Mughal Shaitans [Devils], twice attempted to push on to Baghdad, and, on
both occasions, was defeated, and his Mughals fled before the ’Arab, Kurd,
and Turk, troops of the Khilafat. On this account the Mughal soldiery did
not evince much alacrity or valour in fighting against the Baghdadis, and were
really afraid of them—in truth, it appears that, on all occasions, when ener-
getically opposed by the Musalmans, and sedition did not help them, and
where their stratagems and treachery were not successful, the Mughals were
beaten by anything like equal numbers; but the Musalmans, unfortunately for
them, were a divided people ; and, when the people of one religion, or of one
country, are divided in their counsels, nothing but evil and ruin can ensue.

The fact that the Mughals did not, at the period in question, very eagerly
desire to encounter the Khalifah’s forces, may be gathered from the reply of
the Ni-yin, Tanji, to Hulaki, when he demanded of him what he had
effected since he had succeeded Jurmaghin in his command, previously narrated.
At that time, the Khalifah used to keep up a large force of efficient cavalry, at,
and around his capital, and these the traitor Wazir managed to disband and
disperse to their homes.

It was on account of the success hitherto of the Baghdad troops that
Hulakii found it was necessary, for Mughal prestige, or even for their safety,
to attempt the conquest of ’Irak-i-’Arab, but it is probable he would not have
attempted it so soon, had not the traitor entered into secret communication with
him, and mide known his plans; for, previous to these communications,
Hulakii is said to have been in some anxiety respecting the upshot of a
campaign in that quarter.

1234 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

the Aiyibi, was a Malik of the tribes of the Anboh,' and
they are a sept of the Turk-mans, and exceedingly spirited
and warlike ; and the left wing of the Khalifah’s forces was
their post. During a period of thirty years, from the
time of Jurmaghin’s [first] entering Irak,‘ up to this
period, he [Suliman Shah] was wont to engage in con-
flict like as Rustam-i-Dastan* had done in the age of
ignorance—the Almighty be gracious to him !—and ’Alt-
i-Murtaza in the [early?] days of the true faith—May
God reward him!

Hulaki,’ having been overthrown the first time, on the
second occasion gathered together troops from all Khura-
san and ‘Irak, both horse and foot, consisting of infidels,
renegade Amirs, and captives ; ° and, at the solicitation
of the rafizt Wazir—God’s curse upon him !—turned his
face towards Baghdad. That accursed शद minister,
since he entertained in his heart and disposition treason
and apostacy, had dispensed with the Kurd forces which
were in the Madinat-ul-Islam, Baghdad ; and the Chris-
11203 ° likewise, in secret, having taken measures with
Hulaki, had written letters to him, and had solicited the

4 The best copies of the text have s 53! as above, others s»! There is
kasbah of the first name, on the top of a mountain range, a dependence of
Dilam, in Gilan. It is probable that the Anboh tribe of Turk-mans were in
some way connected with the ’Usmanli Turks, and then, as now, a stumbling:
block in the path of hordes of northern barbarians.

$ In the year 628 H. See page 1115, and note >, para. 5.

6 See note 7, page 422.

7 This is a mistake: Hulakii had not been overthrown, because he had never
encountered the Baghdad forces, hut the other Mughal leaders had, Jurmagbin
in particular, as already noticed. He may mean some portion of Huliki’s
force.

8 Infidels refer to the Mughals, but there were contingents in Hulakii’s army
which the Mubammadan subject states had to furnish—contingents from
Kirman, from Abi-Bikr, the Ata-Bak of Fars, from Maugsil—Badr-ud-Dis,
Lili, its ruler, is said by some to have joined his camp at this time—and the
troops of other subordinate rulers. Captives refer to those prisoners pressed
into the Mughal service.

® Our author uses the word Zarsd, which is generally applied to the Christians,
but it likewise signifies an unbeliever, an infidel, a Gabr, a worshipper of fire,
a pagan. None of the authors I have been quoting accuse the Christians of
any hand in the treason, and the only time in which they are indirectly
mentioned by a few of them is, when the Patriarch of the Nestorians, 3
one of the Khalifah’s envcys, proceeded to the Mughal camp to seek for

peace.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 3235

appearance of the infidel hosts. The Maliks and slaves
of the Khalifah, who have been [styled] Sultans,’ had
become aware of the Wazir’s machinations, and once had
shown to the Khalifah a letter which the Wazir had
written to Hulaki, and they denounced the nature of his
designs. The reason was this, that between the Wazir
and the Sar Dawat-dar [Chief Secretary], Sultan Mujahid-
ud-Din, I-bak, there was dissension and enmity, and he
[the Sar Dawat-dar] was cognizant of the hostility of the
Wazir towards the Khalifah’s son, Amir Abi-Bikr, on
account of his slaying the ra@fizis [previously mentioned] ;
and this fact he was wont to bring to the blessed hearing
of the Khalifah. When the Wazir became aware of the
purpose of the Sar Dawéat-dar, he represented to the
Khalifah in this way, saying: “The Sar Dawéat-dar de-
sires to remove thee from the Khilafat and to raise Amir
Abi-Bikr to that position ;’? and, as the Lord of the

1 The word Sultan here does not mean a sovereign prince: it is a mere
title given by the Khalifahs to great vassals, and to governors of provinces,
and some of the household slaves, under the last Khalifahs. After Burak,
the Hajib, had murdered his master and benefactor, sent his head to the
Mughals, and possessed himself of Kirman, as usual with upstarts, he wanted
a title, so tendered his allegiance to the Khalifah as well as the Mughal ruler,
and solicited the title of Sultan from the former. The reply he received was,
that it was not usual, with the Khalifahs, to grant that title, except to a
Badsbah, or a vassal who entertained not less than 30,000 efficient cavalry in his
own immediate pay. Subsequently, however, Burak obtained it. BARON DE
Tort, in his work, which contains much useful information on the Turks,
Tattars, and Mughals, says, with respect to its application in recent times, that
the word Sultan is only used as a title of birth appropriated to the Ottoman
Princes born on the throne, and to those of the Chingiz Khian’s family, in
the same way as Mirza is applied to the house of Timiir. See note to page
898, where Iridam-chi or Iradam-chi, the equivalent of Mirza, is referred to,
and the reason for this title is explained.

2 This was a mere ruse on the part of the traitor Wazir.

I wrote the whole of these notes d¢fore going through this portion of the
Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, because I suspected, from what I knew of other portions
of ‘‘the great Raschid’s ” History, and from its being dedicated to Hulakii’s
great grandson, that the events respecting Baghdad, and the fall of the
Khilafat, would not be fasthfully related ; and I am not mistaken in my
suspicions, There is not a word—not a hint even—about the notorious treason
of the Wazir, and he is made to appear a very lamb-like and innocent person,
while a loyal servant of the Khalifah, like the Sar Dawat-Dar, is made out to
be a traitor,who, surrounded by a considerable force, consisting of all the knaves,
and villains, and scum of Baghdad, whom he is said to have taken into his
pay, intended to dethrone the Khalifah, and set up another member of the

1236 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Faithful had become aware of the endeavours on both
sides, he used not to pay any attention to the words of
either party in their efforts against each other.

When therefore the Maliks laid before the Khalifah the
letters which the Wazir had written to Hulaki, he replied:
“These must be the doings of I-bak, the Dawat-dar:
besides, the Wazir would not act in this way.’ The
Maliks were disheartened at this reply, until, when Hulaki
had arrived within ten £uroh [about twenty miles] of
Baghdad, Suliman Shah, the Amir-i--Alam, and Malik
’Izz-ud-Din, son of Fath-ud-Din, the Kurd, who was the
champion of the D4ar-ul-Khilafat, and who led the right

house of ’Abbas, which plot the innocent Wazir having discovered made
known to the Khalifah! The writer then, unintentionally perhaps, lets the
cat out of the bag. He says the Sar Dawat-Dar was sent for, taxed with the
crime, and admonished, but he replied: ‘‘ If any crime shall be proved against
thy slave, here is his head, and here is a sword, but it is the Wazir who isa
traitor, who has been in constant communication with Hulakii, whose spies are
continually passing to and fro, and, in order to lead us away from his own
treason and screen himself, has falsely accused me.” This statement, in the
eyes of Rashid-ud-Din, is a proof of the Sar Dawat-Dar’s wickedness !

Rashid-ud-Din then goes on to assert that the Sar Dawat-Dar still con-
tinued to entertain his army of knaves and villains, and the Khalifah, being
afraid of him, gave orders to assemble troops to put him down! Then he
tells us that the affair was peaceably settled, and that ‘‘the Dawat-Dar’s name
was inserted in the Khutbah next after that of the Khalifah, which statement
I should not credit if all the ‘‘ great Raschids”” under the sun had said so.
He is careful not to mention the Wazir’s letters to Hulakii: these proceedings
are kept close, as well as the constant communication by other means, and the
dispersion, by that traitor, of the Khalifah’s forces. Our author shows what
the facts were, as to the so-called plot to dethrone the Khalifah, as known in
his day, and he is a contemporary writer.

The meaning of the Perso-’Arabic word Dawat-Dar has been already
explained : its literal signification is bearer of the ink-case, which contains ink,
pens, and seals, but what a ‘‘ (4८८८ Devatvar”” may be among ‘‘Mongols
Proper,” who can tell ?

The garbled accounts of these events show, that, however learned and
talented he was, Rashid-ud-Din’s statements, where his Mughal patrons and
his own interests are concerned, are not to be trusted; and dishonesty in an
author, when apparent, ought to be pointed out. He was a Wazir too, and
had plotted against a rival who was put to death, and was himself put toa most
cruel death, by Abii Sa’id, the great great grandson of the very Mughal Prince
whose perfidy and barbarity he glosses over, and whose success was chiefly, if
not wholly, owing to the aid he received from the arch-traitor Ibn ’Alkami,
the Wazir of the unfortunate Khalifah. Rashid-ud-Din was accused of
having administered poison to Uljaiti Sultan, and it is very probable that he
was a Shi’ah as well as the traitor Ibn ’Alkami, and Nasir-ud-Din, the Tisi,
and hence his concealment of facts.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1237

wing of the Khalifah’s troops, held counsel upon the state
of affairs with Sultan Mujahid-ud-Din, I-bak, the Sar
Dawat-dar, the Mustansiri,®> saying: “Matters have gone
too far, a potent enemy is close at hand, and an adverse
Wazir has plotted with the foe. It is necessary that it be
communicated to the Lord of the Faithful in order that
he may devise some expedient to repel the infidels.”
Mujahid-ud-Din, I-bak, replied: “I have said everything
that was possible on this subject, but it has made no im-
pression upon the blessed ear of the Khalifah. I can do no
more than to request permission for a private audience for
you. Do you makearepresentation to the effect [you have
mentioned].” Malik Suliman Shah, the Aiyaibi Turk-man,
and Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, son of Fath-ud-Din, the Kurd, repre-
sented to the Khalifah the arrival of the enemy, and
solicited that means might be devised for his repulsion.
The Khalifah replied : “The Wazir hath been spoken to:
it behoveth ye to request a reply from him.” Both with-
drew from the audience-hall of the Khilafat despairing.
The Ni-in, Taji [Tanji],‘ with 80,000 infidel cavalry,
from the side of Aran and Azarbaijan, obtained a bridge
fof boats] belonging to the Malik of Mausil [Badr-ud-Din-
i-Lili], and, in order to command Baghdad, fixed it near
to Takrit. The holy-warriors of Takrit sallied out of the
town and fortress, and entirely consumed the bridge * con-
structed by the Mughals, and despatched great numbers
of the infidels to hell, while a few Musalmans attained
martyrdom. The following day, the Mughals repaired
the bridge, as has been previously recorded, passed over,’

3 That is to say he had held the office during the Khildfat of Al-Mustansir
Billah.

५ Written Taji in one of the oldest and best copies of the text, and in
others, as previously noticed, Bajii, एद) पा, Naji, Bakhii, and Majin, but as to
the correctness of Tanjii there is no doubt whatever. In his account of the
Saljiks of Rim our author, or his copyists rather, also style him Taji. See
page 162.

9 How could it be repaired, if totally or entirely bunt ?

° Here the Printed Text, as well as the I. 0. L. MS., No. 19§2, and the
Ro. As. Soc. A/S. have 4 3G—“ one another ”’—instead of u2J3G— “they passed
over or crossed,”’ and make, as may be imagined, an unintelligible jumble of
the sentence. The Printed Text also has Dijlah for Hillah—a river for a town!
The town lies on the west bank of the Dijlah, facing the supposed site of
ancient Babylon.

1238 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and pushed on towards Kifah, Hillah, and Karkh, and
martyred the people. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, son of Fath-ud-
Din, the Kurd, and Mujahid-ud-Din, the Sar-Dawati, with
20,000 horse from Baghdad, crossed the Dijlah [Tigris],
and summoned all the men of Karkh and other towns to
aid them, and fought a battle with the infidel army. As
the forces of Islam contained a great number of infantry,
they stood firm, and received the attack of the infidels,
fought valiantly, and forced them back. The army of the
infidel Mughals sustained an overthrow, and great numbers
of them went to hell. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, son of Fath-

7 The Hamilton 79. of the Text abruptly ends here, and contains no more
than when and where the 45, was copied. It is minus just twenty-six pages.
I notice it again in my Preface.

8 The Pro-Mughal writers materially differ with respect to some of these
events, but, with others, their statements tend to illustrate what our author
says, and make his accounts stand out more clearly, and therefore I must give
a few extracts.

Having dismissed the Khalifah’s envoys, who brought the reply to his
insolent message to the Khalifah, from his camp at Panj-Angusht, Huliki’s
next move was to get possession of the fortresses in the difficult and moun-
tainous tract between Hamadan and the Siwad of Baghdad. He accordingly
began to enter into communication with another traitor, on a smaller scale
than the Wazir, whose name was Husam-ud-Din, ’Akah, the Hakim of the
fortress of Dar-i-Tang, which, from its name—the difficult or narrow passage
—refers to some fort guarding a pass leading into the plain of Baghdad. He
had some cause for discontent against the Khalifah’s government, and at once
complied with Hulakii’s summons to attend him. Husam-ud-Din was received
with distinction, and many favours were conferred upon him, including the
strongholds of Wuriidah-Dujz and Marah-Dujz, and several other forts, which
did not belong to the Mughals to give. He was allowed to return to Dar-i-
Tang, where he had left his son, the Amfr-i-Sa’d, in command ; and, at once,
proceeded to send bodies of his retainers to obtain possession of the forts in
question, and put garrisons of his own in them. The forts appear to have
belonged to the Amir-i-’Alam, Suliman Shah, because Husim-ud-Din is said
०५१० have gathered about him the soldiers of Suliman Shah, and in that way
hopes, long nourished, were fulfilled.” WHusim-ud-Din, having now effected
his purpose, asked the Hakim of Arbfl, Ibn Salayah, the ’Alawf, to make his
peace with Baghdad and the Khalffah’s diwan. He stated that he had heen
proof against all Hulakii’s offers ; and that, if the Khalifah ‘‘ would make his
heart strong by encouragement, and would detach a body of cavalry to support
him, he would raise a force of 100,000 infantry among the Kurds and Turk-
mans around, occupy all the routes in front of Hulaki, and prevent a single
Mughal from approaching Baghdad.” The Wazfr is said to have acquainted
the Khalifah with this offer, but no further notice was taken of it. It would
hot have suited Ibn ’Alkami’s plans, and, therefore, he doubtless was the
cause of the offer not being accepted. He, without doubt, communicated it
to Hulaki, for the latter, soon after, despatched the Nii-yin, Kaibaka, with

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1239

ud-Din, the Kurd, earnestly urged the pursuit of the
Mughals, saying: “It is requisite to pursue the routed

30,000 men, against Husim-ud-Din, and had recourse to the usual perfidious
measures in order to get him into his power. Kaibiikii sent a message to Hus-
&m-ud-Din, saying that he was on his way towards Baghdad, that expedition
having been determined upon, and that Husim-ud-Din’s presence was required
in order to consult with him. Unaware of the snare laid for him, Husaf-ud-
Din fell into it. After Kaibiika had got him into his camp, he told him, ‘in
order to show his sincerity,” to muster all his family, dependents, and retainers,
from the forts and elsewhere, so that they might be enumerated, and the
amount of revenue, to be paid for them, fixed. Still did Husim-ud-Din comply,
unaware that Hulakii knew all. His family, dependents, and soldiers, with
the exception of such as were in some of the forts with his son, being secured,
Hus4m-ud-Din, now that it was too late, found that his secret was known;
and he gave up all hope of life. He was further called upon to give orders
for the fortresses to be destroyed, as ‘‘an undoubted proof of his loyalty,”
and, being hopeless, he complied, after which, he and the whole of his people
were massacred, with the exception of those with his son. Kaibika returned
triumphant to his master’s camp. The Amir-i-Sa’d, Husadm-ud-Din’s son,
refused to give up the forts in his possession, and held them for some time.
At last, he evacuated them, and retired to Baghdad. He was received with
much favour, and subsequently was killed in defending the city against the
Mughals.

This feat accomplished, Hulakii, after he had been again in communication
with the traitor Wazir, and with the Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din, the Tisf, at his
elbow—I have not space for all the prophecies of the Court Astrologer,
Husam-ud-Din, of calamities to happen, in case of attacking Badghad, but
the Tiisf was in favour of advancing, and the Mughal augurs and astrologers
declared all portents favourable for it—gave orders to make preparations for
the campaign, and the Bahadur, Siinjak, was directed to cross the Dijlah, to
the northward of Baghdad, in order to effect a junction with the Nii-yin Tanji,
who, as already mentioned, with the Amirs and troops previously under
Jurmaghiin’s command, was marching, on the right hand, through Agarbafjin,
for the purpose of invading the territories of Shim, Halab, and Riim, but
whose march had been stopped, and he had been directed to turn to his left,
move by way of Arbil and Mausil, where there was a bridge, and effect a
junction with Siinjak. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says Tanji’s y#ras, at that
time, was in Rim, and that he had lately defeated the Saljuk Sultan at
Koshah-Dagh, but this is somewhat different from the statements of others
already briefly mentioned.

The Shah-zadahs, Bulghan or Bulgh4, Titar, and Kilf, all grandsons of Jajf
Khan, and Bika Timiir’s forces, were also directed to advance on the right,
from the district of ’Abbas-abad [west of Hamadan : in some Histories, Asad-
abad], and join ऽन. These junctions having been effected, this combined
force was to approach Baghdad from the west, through the tract afterwards
called the “ Gariwah of Siintae, the Ni-yin.” The Ni-yin, Kaibiika, Kadsiin,
and Ilkae, or Ilka, or Ilkian, as he is also named, were to move towards Bagh-
dad through Khizistan, and approached it from the south-east, while Hulaki,
himself, with the centre, advanced towards the city from the eastward, by way
of Khankin.

The Jami’-ut-Tawarfkh states that Hulakii reached Dinaur, which is three

1240 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

infidels, so that, with this victory even, the remainder of
them may be brought under the sword ;” but Mujahid-ud-
Din, the Sar-Dawéati, delayed in pursuing ;° and, that
night, the Musalmans encamped upon that same spot.

days’ journey from Hamadan, on the route to Baghdad, with the intention of
marching thither, as early as the 9th of Rabi’-ul-Akhir—the fourth month—of
655 H., but returned from thence to Hamadan again, and reached it on the
12th of Rajab—the seventh month—of that year; and that, on the 12th of the
latter month, he despatched his agents to Baghdad with threatening messages
for the Khalifah. Why Hulakii should have made this retrograde movement
is not said, but, in all probability, it was because the traitorous Wazir’s
schemes, which ‘‘the great Raschid,” so glaringly, conceals, were not quite
ripe for execution, and in order to put the loyal servants of the Khalifah off
their guard.

Early in Mubarram—the 11th, according to some accounts—656 H., but Zi-
Hijjah, the preceding month, and twelfth month of the preceding year—655 प~
appears to be the most correct—within the period prescribed, Tanjii, by way
of Dajayl [lit. ^ branch ’] or Dajaylah [the district of Dajayl, at present, lies on
either side of the old bed of the Dijlah above Baghdad. Dajayl is also the
name of the Little Tigris], crossed the Dijlah, and reached the Nahr-i-’Isa [the
canal or rivulet of Jesus]. The MASALIK WA MAMALIK states that ‘‘ Karkh
[which is a suburb of Baghdad] is very well inhabited, and considerable traffic
is there carried on. . . . . On the western side is a canal or stream called
Nahr-i-’Isi, a branch of the Furat, which, passing by Baghdad, falls into the
Dijlah.”

When the Khalifah became aware of this, he nominated Fath-ud-Din, son
of Alanki, with Mujahid-ud-Din, I-bak, the Sar Dawat-Dar, the Mustansiri,
and Kara Sankur, who were the leaders of the Khalifah’s troops [the Dawat-
Dar was a civilian, not a soldier—the names given by our author, who was the
contemporary of these persons, are far more trustworthy], with 20,000 horse,
which the Fanakati magnifies into 30,000 men, fought a hattle with Siinjak,
and Bika Timiir’s forces within the limits of Anbar, before the Kishk [castle]
of Mangiir, above Madrikah, on the east bank of the Furat, within nine
farsakhs of Baghdad. Alfi says the Mughals in the first charge turned their
backs and fled before the Khalifah’s troops. The Fanakati, to flatter the
Mughal pride, says they ‘‘fell back” as far as Shiriyah, in the district of
Tajayl, when they were joined by Tanjii and his troops, and then compelled
the Baghdad troops to fall back.

9 The Pro-Mughal writers make out quite the contrary, but I prefer our
author’s version. Their statements are to the following effect :—

Fath-ud-Din [This is incorrect : Fath-ud-Din is the father’s name ; 'Iz-ud-
Din is the son’s, as our author mentions}, Alanki, who was a man of expe-
rience, on. whose head the dust of the battle-field had fallen, when he saw that
the Mughals, without having had many men killed, turned their backs and
fled, suspected some stratagem on their part, and therefore forbade the Bagb-
dadis to go in pursuit, but Mujahid-ud-Din, I-bak, the Sar Dawat-Dar [poor
fellow ! the Pro-Mughal writers put all faults upon him], who, besides being
without any experience in such matters, was in the revenue department of the
state, thinking this proceeding on the part of [’Izz-ud-Din, son of] Fatb-ud-
Din arose from fear of the Mughals, said to him: ‘‘ Dost thou consider that

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1241

In the vicinity of that place there was a stream, which
they [the inhabitants] call the Nahr-i-Sher [the Lion’s
Canal]. It is cut from the river Furat [Euphrates], and —
the land through which it flows is somewhat elevated, while
the place in which was the Musalman encampment was
low ground. During that night, the accursed दद Wazir
despatched a body [of men], and turned the water of that

debts of gratitude towards the Amir-ul-Miminin are to be paid in this way,
that thou shouldst hold back thy hand when the enemies of the Khalifah
have been beaten and overthrown? It is advisable, before the infidels shall
have received assistance, and they regain strength, to pursue them, and give
tranquillity to the mind of the Amir-ul-Miminin respecting them.” Hearing
this foolish speech, [’Izz-ud-Din, son of] Fath-ud-Din gave orders to follow in
pursuit of the Mughals. When the Baghdadis had passed beyond the margin
of the suburbs [the scene of the action was some distance from the suburbs]
into the open country, the Mughals faced about, and the engagement was
renewed, and continued until the ’Abbasi mantle of darkness [the ’Abbasi
colour was black] covered the opponents, when the battle ceased, and both
sides bivouacked for the night, opposite each other. During that night the
Mughals, by cutting a dyke, let in the water of the river Furat, so that the
whole of the plain where the Musalmans were encamped became flooded with
water, and the greater number of them were drowned in their sleep. They
were attacked in overwhelming numbers in the morning, and [’Izz-ud-Din, son
of] Fath-ud-Din was killed in the engagement, and Mujahid-ud-Din returned
to Baghdad with three persons. The Fanakati says the Mughals cut the dyke
of a considerable river—, 7{—in rear of the Khalifah’s troops, and the whole
plain was laid under water. Our author’s statement here is preferable, no
doubt. The Pro-Mughal writers take away the credit of this act from their
ally, the traitor, but it is evident that some one, who knew the locality, and
who was well aware how easily the country might be laid under water, must
have had the principal hand in the matter : the Mughals probably helped.

The next morning, which was the ’Ashtra—the roth of Muharram, 656 H.
—according to the Fanikati—but Alfi mentions these events as taking place
a month earlier—the Mughals threw themselves upon the Baghdadis—the few
which survived—and overthrew them. [’Izz-ud-Din, son of] Fath-ud-Din,
son of Alankii, and Kara Sunkar, and 12,000 men, besides those drowned
and smothered in the mud, perished on that occasion; and the Sar Dawat-
Dar, Mujahid-ud-Din, I-bak, with only a few persons, reached Baghdad in
safety.

1 This word may be s477—the Canal of Milk—acdording to the vowels used
with it ; but I have no means of pronouncing which of the two names is right,
but the above is the more probable. The Calcutta Printed Text has +
shahr—‘‘city,” ‘‘of lion” or ‘‘milk” twice, because the word _j—nahkr—
canal, rivulet, etc.—is something like , in A/7S., and yet ‘‘shakk” and
“‘Furat ” is used with it! The account of the canals in the neighbourhood of
Baghdad by Captain Felix Jones, I.N., in the ‘‘ Bombay Geographical 7rans-
actions,” may contain some information on this subject, but, in ancient times,
the Dijlah or Tigris, north of, or above, Baghdad, flowed farther zves¢ than at
present.

4K

1242 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

canal upon the encampment of the Musalmans; and the
whole was flooded with water, and their arms and armour
were all spoiled, and they became quite powerless. The
next morning, at dawn, the army of the infidels returned,
and another battle ensued ; but the Musalmans, from the
extreme misery and affliction of the preceding night,” were

$ Here too, the Printed Calcutta Text contains a great blunder, and has
zahmat-i-sipah—affliction, trouble, etc., of the soldiers—instead of zahmat-i-
shabanah, as above.

Respecting the investment, and final operations against Baghdad, and the
downfall of the Khilafat, there are many conflicting accounts, especially in the
matter of detail, and according as the writer was a Sunni, a Shi’ah, or an Official
under the Mughal sovereigns or otherwise ; but all materially differ from our
author, who wrote at the very time the events happened, and whose valuable
account they either never saw, or would not consult or quote. The subject is
an important one in the history of Islam, and, therefore, I shall give some
extracts from the various Histories I have mentioned at the beginning of this
Section, for the information of those who may not have access to all the works
referred to. I also do so because there are some accounts, lately given to the
public, extracted from foreign histories of the ‘* Mongols,” which are, without
doubt, partially, and after a manner, compiled from some of the Histories I
have quoted, but which, apparently, to judge from the very fantastic manner in
which the events, the names of persons, and places, have been metamorphosed,
have not been properly understood by the foreign translators, owing, possibly,
to incorrect or defective A7SS., or have suffered by translation at second hand.

Subsequent to the defeat of the Khalifah’s troops, after the inundation of their
camp, and the rendering of most of their weapons useless, in the month of Zi-
Hijjah, 655 H. [the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh says the 11th of Muharram, 656 H., 2
month too late], the audience tent of Hulaki—equivalent to the ^ Head-
Quarter Camp ”’ in military parlance—was pitched opposite Baghdad, on the
east side. The appearance of the Mughals filled the city with consternation,
and sleep forsook the eyelids of the inhabitants, in their anxiety respecting the
issue, and the prospect of their deliverance. The Khalifah directed that the
gates should be closed, and the ramparts and bastions guarded and secured.
The Amirs and confidential officers of the Khalifah, such as the Amir-i-’Alam,
Suliman Shah, and Mujahid-ud-Din, the Sar Dawat-Dar, and the housebold
slaves, and, in fact, the men of the city, generally, came forth on the walls and
towers prepared for action. Next day [the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, contrary to all
others, keeps Hulakii inactive from 11th to 22nd of Muharram, which is not
correct], early in the morning, the standard of Hulakii was raised ; and, during
the whole of that day to evening, a fire of arrows, flasks of combustibles,
stones from catapults and slings, and a storm from other missiles, continued,
during which a great number were killed and wounded on either side. Each
party maintained its position during the night, and began the fight the following
morning. In this manner the fighting went on with little intermission for +
space of fifty days [the Fanakati, who says twelve days, only begins the
operations in the middle of the following month], when a number of the Say-
yids (Shi’ahs] of Hillah, such as Majd-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Hasat

son of Ta-iis, Sadid-ud-Din, Yiisuf, son of Mutahhar, and others, despatched
a spokesman of their own people, with a letter to Hulaki, the purport of which

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1243

defeated ; and the Maliks of Islam, broken and discom-
fited, retired across the Dijlah, and took up their position

was, that it had become known to them, from the sayings of their forefathers,
more particularly from the Amir-ul-Miminin, and Imam-ul-Murtakin, ’Ali,
son of Abti-Talib—on whom be peace !—that, during this year [656 H,], Hulaki
would become predominant over ’Irak-i-’Arab ; and that the Hakim of that
territory, which was to say, the ’Abbasi Khalifah, would fall into his hands ;
that they tendered their fealty and submission, would carry out such commands
as he might be pleased to issue, and would not place foot out of the pale of
obedience to him.

The effect of such sedition, at such a crisis, may be imagined. Rather than
not destroy their co-religionists of the rival sect, they would sacrifice anything.
What did they care for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent
people by the Mughal barbarians, or the slavery of their country? was not
Hulaki ‘‘a divine figure from the north’? and was not his sole object the
‘“ amelioration”’ of the condition of the Musalman people? Hulakii was over-
joyed. He treated the bearer of the letter and his companions with great
honour ; and sent back along with them a person of his own retinue, named
Tiklah, as Shahnah of Hillah, along with the Amir Yahya, the Nakbjianf.
By this means the Sayyids of Hillah escaped all the misery and affliction of
this troublous time, and “remained safe,” to quote the words of one writer,
** under the protection of the Most High.”

A body of 100 Mughal infidels was sent to Najaf to act as a guard to the
tomb of the Khalifah ’Ali, by way of flattering the Shi’ahs.

According to other accounts, after the Ni-yin, Tanji, and the Bahadur,
Siimjak, became victorious over the forces of Baghdad, after flooding their
camp, they, having crossed the Dijlah, advanced towards the city, and took up
a position on the river banks, on its western side, about the middle of the
month of Muharram, 656 H.—and the date of the letter, given in note ’, page
1261, proves its correctness—but the Raugat-us-Safa and Alfi have the month
of Zi-Hijjah, 655 H., and the latter, by way of making it more certain, adds,
०“ which is 645 of the Riblat.” In the direction of Nabasiah and Sar-sar,
Kaibika, and the other leaders along with him, also pushed forward towards
the devoted city. Hulakii, leaving such of the families—for the Mughals took
their families with them—and heavy materials, as he had brought with him,
at Khankin [Lat. 34° 21’, Long. 45° 22’], now advanced by quick marches,
and took up a position on the east side, where, on the 15th of Muharram—but
other accounts, already referred to, say in Zi-Hijjah—the last month of 655 H.—
his audience tent was set up ; and, like ants or locusts, the Mughal forces
[including Musalm4n contingents from Kirman, Fars, and the other parts of
the Khwarazmi empire which had fallen under the Mughal yoke, who were,
consequently, forced to aid against the head of their faith and co-religionists]
gathered round the city. On the left, or south side of the city, opposite the
Burj-i-’ Ajami—or ’Ajami bastion, the Ni-yin, Kika Ikan, the Amirs, Tatar
and Kili, took up their position facing the Kul-wazi gateway, while Bulgha,
Arkti, and Shiramin, occupied the open space before the gateway of the Sik-
i-Sultin—the Sultan’s Market-place. Buka Timiir was on the side of the
Kal’ah, near the place called the Dolab-i-Bakul, while Tanjii and Siinjak held
a position on the west side, at the place where the ’Uzdi hospital was situated.

A simultaneous attack was commenced on Wednesday, the 23rd of Muhar-

4K2

1244 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

and encamped at Baghdad, at the place where the great
Sanjari masjid*® and asr [castle] are situated. On the
army of the accursed infidels reaching that place, Suliman
Shah, the Aiyibi Turk-man, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, the Kurd,

ram, 656 H. [the Fanakati says, Tuesday, the 22nd, but those dates were
Wednesday and Thursday, unless counted as terminating at noon], when the
sun was in the constellation of Aries. The fighting went on for a considerable
time, until most of the walls and ramparts were destroyed by the discharges
of stones from the catapults—a ‘‘ bombardment ” by means of catapults, as it
is termed in the “ J/ongols Proper,” is certainly something new in the art of
war—and great anxiety arose in the mind of the Khalifah, seeing that he had
not the power sufficient to resist the invaders.

The Faniakati also says, but his statement is not correct—he has greatly
‘*compressed” events here—that the fighting continued for twelve days,
during which the Mughals were occupied in slaughtering and pillaging ; but
this could only possibly refer to the suburbs, for the Mughals were not yet in
possession of the place. That writer also says, that, during this period, Suliman
Shah, the Ka’id of the Khalifah’s troops, and his dependents and followers, were
slain, and that the Mughals also slew the Amir-i-Haj—the Superintendent
and Conductor of the Pilgrims—the eldest son of the Sar Dawéat-Dar, and
that their heads were sent to Mausil, thus showing that he has anticipated
events.

To return to the account in Alfi and others. Finding himself powerless,
the Khalifah is said to have sent out the Wazir, Ibn ’Alkami—aud the Jaslik,’
or Patriarch of the Christians [Nestorians], according to the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh
—with a message to Hulakii saying, that he hoped he would keep his former
promise. Hulaki, in reply, said: ‘‘I made that agreement at Hamadin.
Now that I have reached Baghdad, and the sea of discord, sedition, and
tumult, has become lashed into waves, how can I possibly content myself with
one Wazir? The recompense required is this, thai the Khalifah should like-
wise send to me Suliman Shah, and both the Dawat-Dar-i-Kiichak and
Buzurg—the Chief and Under Secretary, and Keeper of the Seals.”

The Khalifah’s envoys returned to the city with this reply ; and, the next
day, a deputation of illustrious and learned men [according to Raghid-ud-Din,
the traitor Wazir was included] proceeded to Hulaki’s camp to endeavour to
obtain favourable terms of peace ; but he sent them away, and the flames of
war again blazed up, and continued for another six days. The fighting was
obstinate, and great numbers, on both sides, were killed. On the seventh
day, Hulakii, consequent on the arrival in his camp of the deputation above
referred to, and the stubborn defence, caused seven farmdns to be written out,
which were fastened to as many arrows, and discharged into as many quarters
of Baghdad, the purport of which farmans was: ‘‘Sayyids, Kazis, 'Ulami,
Officials, Merchants, and persons who do not fight against us, will be safe and
secure from our rage and vengeance.”

Consequent on the receipt of these farmdns, a great number of scurvy
patriots among the Baghdadis deserted their posts, and gave up fighting;
and, by this means, the Mughals were enabled to approach the. Burj-i-’ Ajami,
and drive out of that important post the weak number now left to defend
the walls on that side.

> The masjid and castle erected by Sultan Sanjar, the Saljiik.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1245

and Mujahid-ud-Din, the Sar-Dawati, presented them-
selves in the Khalifah’s presence, and represented, saying :
“The enemy has reached the city gate, and we have but
a few horsemen along with us in Baghdad, while the
number of the infidels is 200,000 or more. It will be well
that the Lord of the Faithful should embark on board a
vessel, and give directions for placing his treasures, and
his family, on ship-board ; and we will likewise attend the
Lord of the Faithful in the vessel, and push down the
Dijlah as far as the limits of Basrah; and, in those islands,
we will take up our abode until such time as deliverance
cometh from Almighty God, and the infidels be van-
quished.” “ |

The Khalifah mentioned this matter to the Wazir; and
that accursed minister represented to the Lord of the
Faithful, saying: “I have entered into a peace with the
Mughals, and there is no necessity for leaving [ Baghdad].
They [the Mughals] are going to present themselves
before the Lord of the Faithful. If my word is not
believed, it is necessary that the Amir, Abi-Bikr [the
Khalifah’s son], should be sent out in order that he may
understand the inclination of Hulai.” This counsel met
with the approval of the Khalifah, and he sent out his
son. The accursed Wazir secretly despatched a con-
fidant of his own to Hulai, saying: “Treat the Amir, Abi-
Bikr, with great consideration, and pay him much reve-
rence and respect, and send out and receive him, in order

` * The islands in the deltas, near the mouth of the combined rivers which
fall into the Persian Gulf, are referred to here.

This is what the Pro-Mughal writers turn into the Dawat-Dar’s selfishly
deserting his benefactor in his straits. They say, that, when the Dawat-Dar
saw that there was no other way of escape than instant flight, he, without the
knowledge of the Khalifah, embarked with his dependents—some even go so far
as to say that 10,000 men were with him—and dropped down the river.
When the boats arrived opposite the Karyah-ul-’Ukab (village of the Eagle],
called by some the Karyah-ul-Ghaffar, a body of the Il-Khin’s [Hulaki’s]
troops, under Bika Timiir, which had been detached to guard the road from
Basrah, and the Madayin, and prevent the passage of vessels, discovered them,
With discharges of stones from catapults, and flasks of burning naphtha,
the Mughals compelled him to turn back, after they had succeeded in capturing
three boats, all on board of which they slew, and plundered the property in
them ; and the Sar Dawat-Dar, after a thousand stratagems, succeeded in reach-
ing Baghdad again. The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh asserts that this act caused the
Khalifah to determine to submit, s he could not trust his own Amirs !

1246 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

that the Khalifah may have reliance, and thy object will
be gained.” °

* At this time, the Khalifah, who had become resigned to loss of country
and possessions, despatched Fakhr-ud-Din, the Damghbani, and Ibn Darwesh,
with a few rarities, as offerings to Hulaki, saying: ‘‘ We will acknowledge
dependency, and submit,” but he paid no attention to the message ; and they
returned repulsed and disappointed.

Next day, the 27th of Muharram, the Khalffah’s son, Abi-Bikr-i-Abi-l-
Faz]—called Abi-l-Faza’il by some—with a body of grandees, the chief men
of the Khalifah’s Court, proceeded to Hulaki’s camp, bearing presents of great
value, by way of ~esh-hash or tribute, but they also had to return without being
received ; and the traitor Wazir returned with them to the city. The same
day [the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh says, the first day of Safar, which was on a
Thursday] Hulakii despatched another traitor, the Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din,
the Tiisi, in company with one of the Mughal officers, to communicate with
the Wazir, urging that the latter, along with Ibn Jauzi and Ibn Darwesh,
should, by all possible means, pacify the minds of Suliman Shih, and
Mujahid-ud-Din, the Sar Dawat-Dar, because they were the cause of the
Khalifah’s resistance. The Amir, Suliman Shah, was, indeed, and had been,
the bulwark of the faith of Islam against the infidel Mughals, which they did
not lose sight of. The Raugat-us-Safa says, that, to complete the usual
system of Mughal perfidy, “ Hulakii even sent to them a deed of immunity
and a safe conduct ; and, #olentes volentes, they were induced to proceed to the
Mughalcamp.” The author of the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh also details this shameful
act of Mughal treachery without the least remark, as though it were a mere
every-day affair, and a very pious action.

Hulakii, however, wanted more victims—the cup of treachery on the part
of the barbarian monster was not quite full—so he despatched Suliman Shah
and the Sar Dawat-Dar, into the city again, in order that they might bring
out, along with them, their families, kinsmen, dependents, and retainers,
pretending that he was going to despatch them, along with some of his own
forces, against Misr and Sham. This further duplicity appears to have thrown
them: off their guard, and made them trust to the word of a Mughal prince.
They returned, and brought out their people; and a great number of the
soldiery of Baghdad and other persons, in hopes of saving themselves, came
out along with them to Hulaki’s camp. On their arrival there, they were all
distributed among the different bands of Sadhahs and Dahkhas ; and, shortly
after their return thither, an arrow from the city—for hostilities do not seem to
have been suspended during these negotiations—struck a Hindi [probably @
native of Hind, but not necessarily, although possibly, a worshipper of idols,
is here meant] Bitikchi, in the eye, and destroyed it. [Von Hammer, by
some error, turns this upside down, and says that an /ndian struck out the eye
of one of the principal emirs!]. As this man was one of Hulakii’s chief
officials, he was so enraged that he ordered his troops to the assault, and to
strain every nerve to capture the city. He then directed the massacre of the
Sar Dawat- Dar, and his family, connexions, and kinsmen, and all the fugitives
who had accompanied him and Suliman Shah from the city, while the Amir.
i-’Alam, Suliman Shah, the Turk-man, who had so often overthrown the
Mughals, was brought fettered, together with his family, kinsmen, and personal
dependents, to the foot of the barbarian’s throne. He demanded of the
Musalman warrior: ‘‘Thou art an astrologer [doubtless the Titsi Khwaja

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1247

On the Amir, Abi-Bikr’s, coming forth [from Baghdad],
and reaching the camp of Hulai, a throng‘ of people,
infidels and Musalmans, went forth to receive him, and
observed the usages of service. When he reached Hulaii’s
place of audience, the latter advanced about four paces
to receive him, treated him with due ceremonial, conducted
him to, and seated him in, his own place, and himself
reclined on the knees of reverence‘ in his presence, and
said: “^ am come to present myself [before the Khalifah],
and will pay homage [to him]. My uncle, Barka, has be-
come a Musalman at the hands of the Shaikh, Saif-ud-Din,
the Bakhurzi, and I was, then and there, going to become
a Musalman likewise, but I inquired among my Amirs:
‘who is the greatest among the Musalmans?’ and they
directed me to the Court of the Khilafat, in order that,
at the hand of the Lord of the Faithful, I might become a
Musalman.”

also an astrologer, had furnished this information], and art acquainted with the
propitious and unpropitious aspects of the heavenly bodies, the degrees and
minutes, the rising and setting of the stars, and the like, how was it that thou
didst not perceive thine own inauspicious day, and wherefore not warn thy
benefactor, so that he might have acted accordingly, and not have become so
shattered and broken?” The unfortunate Suliman Shah replied: ‘Alas! it
was the misfortune of the Lord of the Faithful that he gave not ear to the
words of his faithful servants, but listened to those of a traitor,” In short,
after some taunting on the part of the Mughal, and words of proud defiance
on the part of Suliman Shah, he and his family, kinsmen, and personal
dependents, were also massacred, to the number of seven hundred persons.
These events are said to have happened on Friday, the 2nd of Safar.

After the murder of the Amir-i-’Alam, Suliman Shah, and the Sar Dawat.
Dar, Mujahid-ud-Din [some say the Dawat-Dar-i-Kiichak, and the Sharab- Dar,
or Purveyor of Drinkables, were also massacred on this occasion], their heads
were sent, by Hulaki’s command, to Maugil, to Malik Badr-ud-Din, Abi-l-
Faza'il-i- Lili—the ‘‘ diplomatic and wily old gentleman” of the ‘* Afongols
Proper’’—by the hands of the latter’s son, Malik Salih, who was then in the
Mughal camp, because great love and friendship existed between Suliman
Shab and his father. The Mausil ruler was ‘directed to have the heads sus-
pended from the gates of Mausil. Badr-ud-Din-i-Lili, was greatly afflicted,
and wept involuntarily, but, as he had submitted to the Mughal yoke, he was
obliged to comply to save himself from destruction.

५ The printed text leaves out the word ese and so turns out the whole of
Hulaki’s host.

7 This is not unlikely, as part of the treachery at which the Mughals were
such adepts, in order to throw dust into the eyes of the Khalifah’s son, and so
make sure of trapping his father. Most of the Pro-Mughal historians, and
particularly Rashid-ud-Din, only seem anxious to conceal how much the
success of [प्प and his hordes was owing to the traitor Wazir.

1248 । THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

_ Having introduced these sweet expressions into the
discourse, the Amir, Abi-Bikr, placed credence on these
deceitful, poisoned, words ; and returned from thence, well
pleased, to the presence of the Lord of the Faithful, and
related all that he had seen and heard. The cursed Wazir
now said: “It is advisable that the Lord of the Faithful,
himself, should move out, in great state and solemnity,
surrounded by the cavalcade of the Khilafat, in order that
Hulaii may be able to observe the ceremony of receiving
him, and perform the rites of homage.” Notwithstanding
the Maliks of Islim—God reward them !—exhorted the
Khalifah, saying: “It is not well to show such confidence,”
still, as the decree of destiny, and divine mandate, had
come down, the dissuasions and exhortations of those
Musalman holy-warriors were of no avail, and, in the end,
fate was using the whip of wrath behind the horse of the
Khilafat, until the Lord of the Faithful went forth, on
horseback, accompanied by twelve hundred distinguished
and eminent persons of the city, consisting of Maliks,
Sadrs, ’Ulama, Grandees, Merchants, and the officials of
the State. When they reached the camp of Hulai, the
accursed Mughal, the Khalifah and the train with him
were stopped, the whole [of the latter] were separated
from each other; and they [the Mughals] seized the Lord
of the Faithful. He [Hulati] commanded him, so that,
in his own handwriting, the Khalifah was compelled to
issue his commands to the rest of the eminent men who
had remained behind at Baghdad, in such wise, that they
came out from the city [to the Mughal camp], until the
whole were seized ; and the Mughals martyred the whole
of them.®

४ The investment having now continued for nearly two months, the diffical-
ties of the Khalifah increased; and the simple-minded Musalman Pontiff
again turned for counsel to the traitor within his own house, and snake within
his own bosom, who was bringing destruction upon himself, his race, and the
Muhammadan people. He inquired of the traitor Wazir what had best be
done to escape from this calamity. He replied that the Mughal troops and
Tattar soldiers were already very strong in point of numbers, and that rein-
forcements were continually arriving, while the weakness of the servants of the
Khilafat daily became greater, and that there were not forces enough in
Baghdad to defend it and repulse the Mughals, and that therefore it was

advisable ‘‘that the Khalifah should abandon hostility and resistance, and
procced to the presence of Hulakii; open his hoards of treasure and valuables,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1249

Here, respecting the putting.to death of the Amir, Abi-
Bikr, the son of the Khalifah, there are several statements ;

and, by means of them, guard his honour and good name from hurt and injury,
since the object of Hulaki, in coming to Baghdad, was to obtain wealth.”
Further, the arch-traitor stated that, by some means or other, after the
Khalifah should have entered into ‘‘ terms of concord and amity, this dissen-
sion might be changed into friendliness ; in fact, into connexion and relation.
ship, by a pearl out of the family of the Chingiz Khan being strung on the
string of matrimony with the Khalifah’s eldest son, and‘another pear! from
the Khalifah’s family being united to the son of Hulaki, which connexion
‘would be, as it was in the time of the Saljiiks, of immense advantage to the
state and to religion, a source of dignity, strength, and grandeur [!], and, at
the same time, would save very many people from slaughter and pillage.”

The Mujami’-ul-Khiyar states that it was the pretence that he had arranged
all this with Hulaki, and only required the Khalifah’s presence to confirm the
alliance, that induced the unfortunate Musta’sim B’illah to trust himself in the
barbarian camp

When the Khalifah, who had now become so lost in amazement, and so
stupefied by his misfortunes, as to be incapable of distinguishing villainy from
goodness, and could not calmly consider what these words contained, perceived
that all hope was gone, he resolved on going out to the Mughal camp, con-
trary to the prayers and exhortations of his faithful subjects ; and accordingly,
on Sunday, the 4th of Safar, 656 H.—the 9th of February, 1258 a.pD.—
accompanied by three sons [but some say, two, and some, four—Abi-Bikr-i-
Aba-l-Faza’il, ’Abd-ur-Rabman, ’Abd-ul-Manakib-i-Mubarak, and ’Abd-ul-
Maniazil, called, by some, Abii-l-’ Abbas-i-Ahmad], and a body of about 3000
persons, consisting of Sayyids, Ecclesiastics, Kazis, Philosophers, Doctors of
the Law, Amirs, and other Grandees and Officials, in short, all the most dis-
tinguished personages of the centre of Islam, he moved out of the city. On
reaching the canvas curtain before the entrance of the audience tent of the
barbarian, Hulaki, the Khalifah, with his sons, and four or five attendants,
were permitted to pass in, but the rest were forbidden, and were distributed
among the soldiery.

‘‘ When the sight of the Mughal, Hulakt,” writes one of my authorities,
“*fell upon the Khalifah, Al-Musta’sim B’illah, as is the custom with the
perfidious, he did not look crossly upon him, but made the usual [complimen-
tary] inquiries with warmth, in such wise that the Khalifah and his sons were
hopeful of good treatment therefrom. After these inquiries, Hulakii turned
his face towards the Khalifah, and said: ‘ Send a person into the city so that
the men may throw down their arms, in order that we may have them
numbered.’ The Khalifah, accordingly, despatched a person, in order that a
proclamation might be made, in his name, to the effect that whoever wished to
save his life should lay down his arms, and set out for the camp of the II-

Khan, Hulakii.” Consequent on this having been done—and, doubtless, at
the suggestion of the traitor Wazir—the greater number of the people laid
down their arms, and set out for the Mughal camp ; and all who proceeded
thither fell under the ruthless swords of those infidels.

Such infatuation as marked these last events is scarcely conceivable, after so
many proofs of Mughal treachery, but the Musalman people were now without
a head.

2250 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

but God knows the truth. One statement is this, that
they martyred him, and the Amir-i-’Alam, Suliman Shah,

` Hulakii having got the Khalffah into his power, sent him to Kai-
bika’s camp, at the Kul-wagi gate, where a tent was pitched for him, and
he was placed in charge of a guard ; and the Mughal leader gave orders, at
dawn the following day, to make a general massacre of the people of Baghdad.
The broad and deep ditch was speedily filled up, part of the walls thrown
down, there being no opposition whatever, and the Mughals, soon after, began
to pour into the city; and the work of slaughter, violation, pillage, and
destruction, began. This was ruthlessly carried out ; and the Haram-Sarae—
the private dwelling—of the Khalifahs, which, for five hundred years, had been
the place of prostration of the Musalman peoples, was so utterly demolished that
no one would have imagined that a habitation had ever existed there. The
other buildings of Baghdid—the masjids, mausolea of Musalman saints and
Khalifahs, the palaces, hospitals, colleges, and libraries—were all given to
the flames; and places adjacent, constituting a vast extent of suburbs, were
completely sacked and devastated.

Guzidah states that, during the massacre, a Mughal named Mianji, in one
small street of the city, found upwards of forty motherless sucking-bahes ;
and, thinking to himself, that without mothers’ milk they would perish, put
them to death to deliver them from their suffering !

I pass over the accounts given by some Oriental writers respecting the
hoards of treasure, to get at which the rack was freely used, but I cannot
pass over, without comment, the statement that ‘‘ Mosfassim,’’ who had given
up all hope of life, and who did not know at what hour the order for his
murder might be given, ‘‘ degged to be allowed to keep Joo wives [Musalmins
can only have four at one time, but concubines are unlimited] upon whom
neither sun nor moon had shone, and was allowed to select 100,” as we are told
in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper.” What could he do with 100 wives, when he and
his sons were kept in a tent under a Mughal guard, and allowed but four or
five attendants for himself and them? Was he to leave his 100 wives for the
sun and moon to shine upon in the camp among the brutal Mughals ?

This 15 a specimen how History may be travestied, and of ‘‘ taking up the
mattock ” to ‘‘ complete the work which the pioneer can only begin.” This
little episode is taken from some foreign translation of ‘‘the great Raschid’s”
Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, but the meaning of Raghid-ud-Din was either not caught
by the translator, or the author of the ‘‘ Mongols Proper” misunderstood it.
The words of Raghid-ud-Din, after his mentioning that directions were given
to number the Khalifah’s 4aram—the exact meaning of which word should
be duly weighed—it is not solely the place wherein wives and concubines
dwell, but the home of mothers, grandmothers, aunts, daughters, and female
relatives as well, including sons’ families, and sometimes daughters’—and
that it was found to contain 700 females and concubines, and 1200 domestics,
are: ‘‘ When the Khalifah [who had been conducted to his own palace on
the 9th of Safar, according to Rashid-ud-Din] found what was going on, be
implored saying, ‘The inmates of the 4aram, on whom neither sun nor moon
has shone, spare unto me’ [(६> ye—i.e. pardon or spare them for my sake}.”
Hulakii said: ‘‘ Out of the 700, choose 100, and give up the rest.” The
unfortunate Khalifah chose 100 females, consisting of his relatives and
kinswomen [including his mother, aunts, sisters, wives, and female children,

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1251

the Aiyibi, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, son of Fath-ud-Din,’ the
Kurd, and Mujahid-ud-Din, I-bak, the Sar Dawéati, all
four of them ; and some [persons] narrate, that, when the
Amir, Abi-Bikr, returned to the presence of his father on
coming back from the camp of Hulai, at the time the
Lord of the Faithful was setting out [to proceed thither],
the Amir, Abi-Bikr, did not accompany him, and that he
[subsequently] left Baghdad, and proceeded into Sham
[Syria] by way of the desert. Others again state, that he
was martyred, after he had, in the presence of Hulai,
uttered harsh and taunting words ; and the words are [said
to have been] these. The Amir, Abi-Bikr, said: “It was
supposed by us that, as thou hast high birth, thou mightest
be an honourable man, and that thou wouldst be a high-
minded monarch; and we placed reliance on thy word.
Now it is obvious that thou art neither a monarch nor a
man, since thou hast acted thus perfidiously, for kings
commit not perfidy.” Hulati commanded so that they
martyred him. On the other hand, some state, that the
Amir, Abi-Bikr, commanded one of the great Sayyids that
they should take him towards Azarbaijan, and said that
he would remain there some time, until, in freedom and in
honour, after Baghdad became tranquil, command would be
issued ' [as to what it would be advisable to do]. When
that venerable Sayyid had taken the Amir, Abi-Bikr, some
stages on the way towards Azarbaijan, a number of rene-
gades represented to Hulaii, saying: “Thou hast made a
and the females of the families of his sons], who were allowed to issue forth
with him when he was removed, and were thus to be saved from slavery to
those barbarians ; but what subsequently happened to them, with one or two
exceptions, has not transpired. The fate of the remaining 600 may be easily
conceived—much the same as, but certainly not worse than, helpless Turkish
women have suffered, and are still suffering, in these days of ‘‘ crusaders,”
**ameliorators,’’ Bulgarians and Cossacks.
® The Calcutta Printed Text, and the A/SS., from which it has been printed,
kill the father, Fath-ud-Din, who, in the former, is styled ‘‘ Gird”—oS—
again, while the name of his son, who was killed, is left out altogether. The
father probably had been dead half a century, after the manner of the father of
Muhammad, the ’Arab conqueror of Sind, namely, Kasim, whom some trans-
lators and compilers make the conqueror instead of the son, and without being
conscious of the blunder, in the same manner that Bakht-yar-ud-Din, the
Khalj Turk, has had the credit of being the conqueror of Lakhanawati, instead
of his son, Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad. See note ५, page 548.
५ Respecting the future affairs of the Khilafat, he meant.

3252 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

mistake. If the Amir, Abi-Bikr, should reach Azarbaijam
in safety, all the forces of Rim, Sham, and Maghrab, will
flock round him; and, undoubtedly, he will take his
revenge.” Hulai [on this] despatched people of his owm
in pursuit of the Amir, Abi-Bikr; and they brought him
back, and Hulaii martyred him ; but God knows the truth.
The Almighty reward him [Abi-Bikr] and the whole of his
family! Amin.

ACCOUNT OF THE MARTYRDOM OF THE LORD OF THE
FAITHFUL, AL-MUSTA’SIM B’ILLAH—THE ALMIGHTY
REWARD HIM!

For some time, the infidel Mughals desired to detain
the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Musta’sim Bvillah. There
were a great number of Musalmans among the Mughal
forces, and they declared: “{f प्त प्रप्र should pour out the
blood of this Khalifah* on the ground, both he, and the
Mughal army will be swallowed up in an earthquake ;
and therefore it behoveth not to slay him.” The object
of these Musalmans was this, that the Lord of the Faith-
ful should remain alive ; for, among all, hesitation arose
about putting the Khalifah to death. The Malik of
Mausil, Badr-ud-Din-i-Lili—God’s curse upon him !—
and other infidels,® represented to Hulai, saying : “If the
Khalifah continues alive, the whole of the Musalmans
which are among the troops, and other [Musalman] peoples
who are in other countries, will rise, and will bring about
his liberation, and will not leave thee, Hulai, alive.” The
accursed Hulaii was frightened at this, saying: “If the
Khalifah continues to live, an outbreak of the Musal-
mans may take place; and, if he is slain, with the sword,
when his blood falls upon the ground, an earthquake will
take place, and people will be destroyed ;” so he proposed
to put the Khalifah to death after a different fashion. He
gave orders therefore so that they enfolded him in a
[leather] sack for holding clothes, and kicked his sacred

2 Instead of Khalffah, some copies of the text have fabakak—dynasty.
3 Referring to the Musalman contingents from the subject states in the

Mughal camp.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1253

person until he died—May the Almighty reward him and
bless him !*

५ Some Historians affirm that the Khalifah died of starvation, while others
say—as our author stated a century before any Pro-Mughal author wrote—
that Hulakii consulted with his confidants and chief officers about putting him
to death. Some said that, if he should escape from the present danger, assist-
ance would reach him from the whole Musalman world, and that troops would
gather round him from every part of Islam, and great sedition and trouble
would arise. This advice Hulakii considered was given out of loyalty to him,
and he determined to have the Khalifah put to death. Husim-ud-Din, the
Astrologer [this is the ‘‘ Hossam ud din,” who is ‘‘ probably a Muhammedan,”’
of the ‘‘ Mongols Proper”’; but did any one ever hear of any Husdm-ud-Din
who was not a Musalman ?], who was allowed admission to the presence of
Hulaki, caused it to be made known, that, if the Khalifah should be put to
death by the Mughals, the world would become overspread with darkness,
and that the portents of the judgment day would appear; and many other
similar things he stated, which filled the superstitious mind of Hulaki with
fear and dread. He therefore consulted with the Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din,
the Tisi, the Shi’ah, and ally of the traitor Wazir, who also laboured for the
downfall of the ’Abbasis ; and he replied, saying : ‘‘ No such portents arose:
when Yahya [St. John the Baptist], the Innocent, was put to death, when the
Prophet, Mubammad, died, and when the Imam, Husain, was unjustly
martyred ; and, if Husaém-ud-Din asserts that such as he states will arise if an
? Abbasi is put to death, it merely shows his excessive simplicity.” Others
said that no sword could possibly be dyed with the Khalifah’s blood.

The Khalifah left the city, and came to the Mughal camp [Guzidah says,
contrary to others, that he was put to death ५० days after he came out], on
Sunday, the 4th of Safar, 656 H.—9gth of February, 1258 A.D.—as previously
mentioned. Of this date there is no doubt whatever, but there is some dis-
crepancy with respect to the date of the last act in this tragedy. Some say
that, on the following Wednesday, which would be the 7th, the Khalifah was
summoned to the presence of Hulakii, while others say it was the 6th. The
Fanakati says the roth, without mentioning the day, which was Saturday,
while some say Tuesday, the 16th of Safar, but the 16th was on a Friday,
and others again say it was Tuesday, and others Wednesday, the 14th of that
month, equal to the 18th of February. As, in the east, the date commences
after noon, as in nautical time, it is evident that the date was the 14th of Safar,
and that it was Wednesday, as I shall afterwards show. That same day
Hulakii had moved his camp from near the city to a position close to the Dih-
i-Wakf, and the Dih-i-Jalabiah ; and thither the Khalifah was conducted from
the tent, in which he had been under a guard at the gate of Kul-wazi, to the camp
at Dih-i-Wakf. Giving up all hope of life, and expecting speedy martyrdom,
he asked permission to be allowed to go to the bath, that he might perform
his ablutions anew. Hulakii directed that five Mughals should accompany
him, but the Khalifah objected to ‘‘ the society of five of the infernal guards,”
referring to the XCVI. Chap. of the Kur’AN, verse 18.

On that same day, the Khalifah, with his four sons [the Ro. As. Soc. MS.
of the Fanakati merely says ‘‘his eldest son’’], together with their servants, were
ordered to be put to death. Notwithstanding the assurances of the Khwajah,
Nasir-ud-Din, the वृ च्ञ) the superstitious mind of the barbarian feared lest what

1254 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The Amir, Abi-Bikr, the Khalifah’s son, and the Amir-i-
?Alam, Suliman Shah, the Aiyibi, they likewise martyred,

had been predicted might come to pass if the blood of the Khalifah should
be shed. He therefore directed that he should be rolled up in felts, and that,
in the same manner as the felt-makers beat the felts in making, he should be
beaten to death, and every bone in his body broken. This mode of punish-
ment, from what has been already stated, was not unusual among the Mughals
[see note at page 1185]. The Mujami’-ul-Khiyar says, like our author, that
the Khalifah, and his sons, were sewn up in bullocks’ hides, and kicked to
death.

Thus was the thirty-seventh and last of the Khalifahs of Baghdad, of the
house of ’Abbas, martyred at the village of Wakf—there never was such
a place as ‘‘ Vacwf"—towards the close of the day, on Wednesday [our
Tuesday afternoon or evening], the 14th of the month of Safar, 656 H., at the
age of forty-seven, but some say forty-six years and three months, and others
forty-three years and three months. His reign occupied sixteen years and

-nearly three months ; and the Khilafat of the house of ’Abbas had lasted 523
years, eleven months, and one day. His sons, and other offspring, and the
whole of his family and kin were also massacred, two days after, and utterly
exterminated according to the generality of the Pro-Mughal writers ; but our
author, who, evidently, had correct information respecting these events, gives
an interesting account of the subsequent death of the Khalifah’s daughter
farther on; and he likewise states that a son, a mere infant, also survived.
We also know that fifteen Khalifahs of the house of ’Abbis, subsequently,
filled the office of Khalifah, in Migr. See note >, page 1259.

The author of the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, with great apparent glee, asserts that
the youngest son of the Khalifah, Mubarak Shah, so called, was groves
to ए] Khiatiin, one of Hulaki’s Khattins, who accompanied him into
j-ran-Zamin, and that she sent him to Maraghah that he might be with the
Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din, the Tisi, and that she [subsequently 7] gave him a
Mughal wife, who bore him two sons.

The third day after the above tragedy was enacted, on Friday, the 16th of
Safar [the third day before Friday would be Wednesday, for the date of the
Khalifah’s death], Hulaki commanded that the massacre, pillage, and devas-
tation, should cease [Von Hammer, who has reversed the events, says the sack
and pillage commenced four days before the Khalifah’s death, and continued
for forty days after !], and he came to view Baghdad. The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh
differs here again considerably from other Histories. It states that the
massacre began on the 7th of Safar, and terminated on the 9th, on which
date Hulakii entered the city, and that he moved from near Baghdad and
encamped at Dih-i-Wakf and Dih-i-Jalabfah on the 14th of Safar, the same
date as that on which the Khalifah was put to death.

Nearly all the inhabitants of Baghdad had been massacred, but the few
which remained now began to appear in the bazars and the shops ; and com-
mand was issued to remove the dead from the streets, and bazars, and for them
to be buried.

Ibn ’Alkami imagined, up to this time, that the good offices he had per-
formed for Hulakii, and the aid he had rendered him in destroying his bene-
factor, and the people of Baghdad, would have been rewarded with the
government of that city and its territory ; but Hulaki: had now made as much

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1255

until the whole of the Amirs and Maliks of the Court of
the Khilafat, with the exception of the little son*® of the
Lord of the Faithful, were made martyrs of.

Hulaii seized all the treasures of Baghdad, the enumera-
tion of, and amount of which wealth, the pen of description

use of the traitor as he required, and took no farther account of him other-
wise than to despise him for his base ingratitude, and to be convinced that no
faith could be reposed in one who had betrayed his benefactor. The Bahadur,
"Ali, a Turk or Tattar Musalman, was made Shahnah or Intendant of the city
and territory, as a reward for his intrepidity, because, out of the whole of
Hulaki’s army, he was the first to place foot within the walls of Baghdad.
Fakbr-ud-Din, the Damghani, was made Sabib-i-Diwan, but Ibn ’Amran,

another traitor, was made Hakim or Governor of the Baghdad territory,
which Ibn ’Alkami hoped to have obtained as his reward. During the
investment, Ibn ’Amran had helped the Mughals by supplying them with grain
and forage from the neighbouring district of Ya’kiibah, where there were im-

mense quantities stored. He was a man of the very lowest class, and was the
menial servant of the ’Amil or Revenue Officer of Ya’kibah, and, among
other duties, he used to shampoo his master’s feet—I have not space for a full
account of him here—and the learned Ibn ’Alkamf was placed in a subordinate
position as Wazir, under this boor. Now that it was too late, the late Wazir
became a prey to shame and remorse ; and, bitterly regretting his misdeeds,

lived, for a short time, brooding over his disappointment, shunned, and treated
with contempt and disdain by the people of Baghdad, notwithstanding his
utmost endeavours to get any one to notice him. He was soon after laid on

the bed of sickness, brought on by the state of his mind; and he died in less

than two months after the martyrdom of the Khalifah, on the 11th [Rashid-
ud-Din says the 2nd] of Rabi’-ul-Akhir, 656 प. His son, Sharaf-ud-Din,

was afterwards installed in the subordinate office to which his father had been

nominated, under Ibn ’Umran.

But why need any one, who can read the originals for himself, say so? Are
we not told in the “ Mongols Proper’’ [p. 201], that ‘‘ Khsdagu appointed
governors to take charge of the captured city,” and that ‘‘ /bn Alkamiyi, the
vizier, retained his post. He is accused of treachery by the majority of the Moslem
historians [“ the majority” which the writer has seen in translation probably.
What Musalman author does not accuse him of treachery, except the partial
historian, ‘‘the great Raschid” ?]. Of the sect of Rafizis, it was natural that he
Should delight in the overthrow of the Abassidian dynasty and the reinstatement
of that of Ali [Where and when, and who was the first person of the dynasty
of ^^ Ali” reinstated ?], ... He [5 uf Alkamiyi] died three years after
the capture of Baghdad,” etc., etc. Such is history !

The number of people, who fell during these massacres, has been omitted
by several authors. Some say 800,000 perished, but the number generally
quoted is the enormous amount of 1,800,000, which includes not only the
ordinary inhabitants of the city, but also those of the extensive and populous
suburbs, and the unfortunate people from the country round, who, in a similar
case, as we have witnessed, lately, having been stripped of house, home, and
property, fled to the capital city of their country for refuge from the barbarian
invaders.

5 See note », page 1259.

1256 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

could neither record, nor the human understanding con-
tain, and conveyed the whole—money, jewels, gold and
gem-studded vases, and elegant furniture—to his camp.
Such of these as were suitable for Mangii Khan [Kaan];

¢ There is, as previously mentioned, some discrepancy among the Histories

and Historians I have been quoting in these notes, respecting Mangti Ka’an’s
death, but it seems strange that such discrepancy should exist. There is no
doubt whatever that Baghdad fell in Safar, 656 H., but the Tarikh-i-Jahan-
gir and Hafig Abrii state that Mangii Ka’an died in Ramazan, 655 H., just
six months before that event took place. Yet in Guzidah, Fasih-i, the Rau-
gat-ug-Safa, Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, and in other works, it is recorded that ‘‘ the
Il-Khan [Hulaku], after the capture of Baghdad, despatched a vast quantity
of the best of the plunder, and other valuable things of ’Irak-i-’Arab, and
"Irak-i-’Ajam, to his brother Mangi—which our author had already stated the
best part of a century before any Pro-Mughal author wrote—under the charge
of the Nu-yfn, Shiktir [the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, referring to his departure,
styles him Hilajii, but, when mentioning the receipt of the news of Mangii’s
death, calls him Shiktir also], with the good news of the fall of Baghdad, and
a full account of his proceedings, and informing him that he intended to march
towards Misr and Sham. When his envoys reached the throne of Mangt
12311, and delivered their message, Mangii was overjoyed, exalted Hulakii of
his royal favour, and permitted the envoys to set out on their return.” These
two statements are widely different from each other ; and the only way to recon-
cile them is, as is stated in the Lubb-ut-Tawartkh, and some other Histories,
that Manga Ka’an died early in 657 H., and not in 655 H., as in the Tarikh-
i-Jahan-gir and Hafiz Abri, for the news reached him in the last month of the
year 656 H.; and, if we only consider the immense distance that separated the
brothers, and the time it must have taken to convey the news from the Yangtsi
to the Euphrates—to Halab, where Hulakti then was—we can pretty clearly
arrive at the correct date.

I must now, however, say a few words on another remarkable event which
happened in the middle of 656 H.—the year before Mangu’s death, and which,
correctly, belongs to Mangii’s reign—the erection of the Observatory on a
high hill north of Maraghah, more particularly, because his ferocious brother,
merely because he happened to have carried out his sovereign’s instructions,
has had the chief, if not the sole credit, among European writers and trans-
lators especially, of the good work, and the love of scientific research, while
Mangi’s attainments are unknown: Hulakit, however, is said to have had
a great passion for alchemy, and expended vast sums in its pursuit. We are
informed, in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper,” in almost every page of which D’Ohsson’s
History is drawn upon, that ‘‘ Mangu ” had sent, with his brother, ^" Khulagu,”?
an astrologer styled ‘‘ Hossam-ud-din, who had been sent as his adviser,” and
that ‘‘ Hossam was probably a Muhammedan!” Farther, that ‘‘ Nassir ud
din, a famous astronomer, was ordered by Khulagu to’ build an observatory,”
etc., and that Ae "^ had impressed upon Khulagu the necessity of forming new
astronomical tables,” etc.

The facts are these—and I quote my authorities almost in their own words
—that, out of the whole of the sovereigns of the Chingiziah dynasty, Mangi
was the only one who nourished a great and sincere love of science, more par-
ticularly of mathematics. His study was Euclid, several of whose problems

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1257

with some of the females of the Khalifah’s Aaram, together
with a daughter of the Khalifah, he [Hulai] despatched
towards Turkistan ; some [things ?] were sent, as presents,
and as his portion, to Barka, the Musalman, and some
Hulai himself retained.

Trustworthy persons have related, that what reached
Barka he refused to accept, and that he slew the
emissaries of Hulaii; and, on this account, enmity became
established between Barka and Hulai.? With respect
to such things as he [Hulda] sent to Mangia Khan, when
that property, and money, reached the city of Samr-

he had solved ; and, from the great interest he took in astronomy, he earnestly
desired that, during his reign, an observatory should be erected. He had,
previously, commissioned Jamal-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Tahir, son of
Majd-ud-Din, Al-Bukhari, to carry out some important observations, but, on
account of the paucity of appliances and instruments, and the defective
acquaintance with the subtilties and niceties of mathematics, several important
astronomical matters still remained doubtful. ।

At this period, the eminent acquirements of the Tisi Khwajah, Nasir-ud-
Din, Muhammad, were famous even in those parts—in Turkistan and Tamghaj.
The Khwajah, at this time, used to dwell in the fortresses of the Mulahidahs :
he had been long and liberally patronized by the last few Khudawands of the
sect, had composed his famous work on ethics—the Akhlak-i-Nasiri—in the
fortress of Maimtin-dujz, and dedicated it to one of the Muhtashims of the
order. When Mangii Ka’an despatched Hulaki into I-ran-Zamin, at the time
of taking leave of each other, he said to Hulaki, ‘‘ No doubt you will meet
with the Khwajah, Nasir-ud-Din of Tus, who is now among the Isma’ilis
[some writers say that he was among them against his will, but, as I have
already shown, this is erroneous]. Treat him with honour and favour, and
send him to me.” When the Tisi reached Hulikii’s presence, the latter, on
account of the great distance which separated him from his brother, who had
left his «7ai for the territory of Manzi, put off, from time to time, sending the
Kbwajah to the Ka’an’s presence ; and, by degrees, he became so much taken
up with him himself, and found him so useful, in combination with his brother
Shi’ah, the traitor Wazir of Baghdad, as already narrated, that, at last, he
determined to retain him about his own Court, and in his own service.
Hearing from Hulakii the objects of the Ka’an, the Khwajah himself proposed
to Hulakii to carry them out in Agarbaijan, and he was furnished with a
mandate accordingly. Four other astronomers and mathematicians were
associated with him in the erection and furnishing of this observatory—
Mu’ayyid-ud-Din, ’Arzi, Fakhr-ud-Din, Maraghi, Fakhr-ud-Din, Aknhlati,
and Najm-ud- Din, Kazwini; and, in the 57th year from the accession to
sovereignty of the Chingiz Khan, the Rasad-i-Il-Khani was erected, and
important observations began to be carried out. I have no space for farther
details here: hereafter, if time permits, I hope to enter more fully into
these subjects.

7 For some account of these matters, see the notice of Barka’s conversion,

farther on.

4 L

1258 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIL

kand, the daughter of the Khalifah—God reward her!—
requested permission from the authority sent in charge of
them, saying: “The mausoleum of one of my ancestors 15
situated in the city of Samrkand, namely, that of Kusam,
son of Abbas: permit me to go and visit his tomb.” The
intendant in charge acceded to her request ; and that
innocent [creature] proceeded to the mausoleum of Kusam,
son of ’Abbas,® and celebrated the usual rites observed on
paying a visit to a tomb, performed a prayer of two genu-
flexions; and, bowing her face to the ground, prayed,
saying: “OQ God! if this Kusam, son of ’Abbas, my
ancestor, hath honour in Thy presence, take this Thy
servant unto Thyself, and deliver her out of the hands
of these strange men!” The door of compliance was
opened ; and, then and there, in that act of adoration,
she transmitted her pure soul to the Most High God.
God reward her and bless her, and her ancestors, and all
martyrs of the true faith |!

The author of the Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi, in the Section
[entitled] “‘ Kawa’in,” and in the mention of the outbreak
of the Turks, quotes a tradition from ’Abd-ullah-i-’Abbas
—on whom be peace! He says: “’Abd-ullah, son of
Abbas,’ took oath and said, ‘the Khilafat of my posterity

8 Kusam, son of Al-’Abbas, accompanied Sa’id, son of the Khalifah
’Usman, who held the government of Khurasin, and who had been des-
patched, at the head of an army, into Mawara-un-Nahr. Kugam died in that
territory, and was buried, at Samrkand.

Muhammad Husain Khan, otherwise Mirza Haidar, the Doghlati Mughal,
says in his History respecting the names of certain cities mentioned in
previous Histories as formerly existing in parts of Central Asia, referred to
in note at page 889, para. 4, that he himself visited a well-known place in
Mughalistan, which is known by the name of )lis»:—Yiimghal—where there
was a cupola still standing, with part of an inscription remaining, which he
read—‘‘ Shah Jalil, son of Kugam, son of ‘Abbas”’—the rest was wanting,
and indicated that that was the tomb of the son of the very Kugam above
mentioned.

* Here occurs a very good example of the use of the igafat instead of, or
for, din, sonof. Thelate Mr. W. H. Blochmann, M.A., in his ‘‘ Contributions
to the Geography and History of Bengal,” says that ‘‘the use of the igafat,
instead of bin or pisar (son), is restricted to poetry, and does mot occur 1m
prose,” and took exception to my use of it. At page er: of the Printed
Calcutta Text, line second from the bottom, are the following words: ++ |l
५ ily. . = oaks alll where the izafat is understood for soz of, and in line
three from the top of the following page are these words: , . . . ele walls
of ok ५5 Now, as ‘'Mawlawis Khadim Hosain and Abd Al-Hai” are

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1259

will continue up to such time as Turks of ruddy counte-
nances, whose faces will be broad like unto a buckler, shall
overcome their dominion and grandeur.’” Therefore,
"Ulama have all [from time to time] given an interpreta-
tion respecting this prediction. Some have said that they
might be Musalman Turks, and others have said that they
might be from the tribes of the Turks' of the empire of
Chin, who would subdue the land of I-ran, 'Irak, and
Baghdad ; but unto all the sages of the world, and ’Ulama
of the race of Adam—God reward them !—it [now] became
manifest that the latter interpretation was the correct one,
and that the downfall of the seat of the Khilafat would be
wrought at the hands of the infidels of Chin ?—the curse of
the Almighty be upon them !—because the Lord of the
Faithful, Al-Musta’sim B’illah—God reward him !—attained
martyrdom at the hands of that race.

May the Sultan of Sultans, who, up to this present time,
continues as usual to read the Khutbah in, and adorn the
coin with, the name of that lawful Imam and Khalifah,?

the editors of that Printed Text, under the supervision of Colonel W. N.
Lees, LL.D., and it comes from Calcutta, where the ^^ Turani idiom” is so
much cultivated, one must give these learned men credit for knowing some-
thing of that idiom, and that, if the text, as it stands, was not considered
right by them, they would not have allowed the words to remain as they are.
I may add that the Calcutta Printed Text agrees, in this instance, with several
MSS. copies of the text, and that the only variation is that a few copies leave
out the di”, intending izafats to be used in both instances.

1 That is to say the descendants of Turk, which, according to their own
traditions, the Mughals are. This prophecy seems different from that which
the Sayyids of Hillah referred to. See last para. of the note at page goo.

3 Our author continually styles the Mughals infidels of Chin.

> It appears to have been considered necessary to do this until such time as
a successor—a Khalifah and Im&am—should be installed.

This is a pretty good proof that, at Dihli, they were not quite so ‘‘sin-
gularly ignorant,” nor ‘‘strangely indifferent,” as appears to have been
supposed :—‘‘ While the throne of the Khalifs became an idle symbol, and
the centre of Isldm was converted into a ghastly camp of Nomads, the latest
Muhammadan conquest ‘in partibus infidelium’ must have been singularly
ignorant of, or strangely indifferent to, the events that affected their newly-
conceded allegiance [?], as the name of the martyred Must’asim [sic] was
retained on the Dehli coinage for some forty years after his death.” —Thomas :
¢¢ PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI,” page 255.

After the capture of Baghdad, those of the ’Abbasi family who escaped the
sanguinary Mughals fled into Misr ; and there, the ruler, Malik Tahir-i-Band-
kadar, acknowledged Ahmad, son of Tahir, brother of the late Khalifah, as
his successor to the Khilafat, at a great meeting assembled for that purpose,

4 1. 2

1260 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

be long preserved and maintained upon the throne of
sovereignty, for the sake of the honour of the martyrs of
the family of ’Ali and of 1472985, and the souls of the
Lords of the Faithful, through the mercy of Him who 1s
the Most Merciful of the Merciful !

After Hulaii had sacked Baghdad, and had caused the
people to be martyred, he made over those that remained
to the Wazir,‘ and assigned him a Mughal Shahnah
[Intendant] that he might cause them to be collected
together. When the accursed Wazir returned again to
Baghdad, and had collected some of the people, and
located them therein, some of the servants of the Khalifah,
who had retired into the Wadi, and remained alive, to the
number of about 10,000 horsemen, collected, and, suddenly,

and then and there did homage to him, on the 9th of Rajab, 659 H. He
assumed the title of Al-MUNTASIR. The ruler of Misr furnished him with an
army and all things befitting his position, and despatched him, at his own
particular request, towards Baghdad, which the new Khalifah hoped to
recover. He however encountered a Mughal army within the limits of Anbar,
and was slain, after an obstinate battle, in 660 H. Some say he disappeared,
and was no more heard of. He was succeeded on the 26th of Safar, 660 H.,
by Abi-l-’Abbias-i-Ahmad, son of Hasan, son of Abi-Bikr, son of 'Ali, who
was with him in the battle, and escaped into Migr. He took the title of AL-
HAk1M, and filled the office of Khalifah for upwards of forty years. He died
at Kiahirah, in 701 H. Thirteen successive Khalifahs of the same family
filled the office; and the last, AL-MUTAWAKKIL-’ALA-ULLAH, was taken
prisoner by Sultan Salim, the first of that name, of the ’Usmanli sovereigns,
when he defeated the Misris in 922 H. The Khalifah was taken away to
Constantinople, where he was allowed a pension, and was treated, as long as
he lived, with all possible respect. With him the family of "Abbas became
extinct—-at least, as far as could be discovered—and from that time, down to
the present day, the ’Usmanlt Sultans claim the office of Khalifah—the
spiritual as well as the temporal authority—and as being the guardians of the
holy places; and all Muhammadan sects but the Shi’ah acknowledge this
authority.

4 Not according to the Pro-Mughal writers. Farther on our author says
Hulakii had him put to death.

$ Low-lying ground or valley, the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, also
the channel of a river, marshy ground near rivers abounding in canes oF
reeds.

¢ In some copies 2000. Nothing of this is mentioned by the Pro- Mughal
writers, as may be easily imagined. Raghid-ud-Din however states that the
Nii-yin [lka and Kara Bika were left at Baghdad, with 3000 [30,000 9] Mughal
horse, as a garrison, but, certainly, two months after, from some reason or other,
Ilka, ^ with several Amirs” along with him, reached Hulakii’s camp in the
neighbourhood of Hamadan. The son of the Sar-Dawat-Dar, who succeeded
in gaining Hulakii’s confidence, subsequently served him after the perfidious

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1261

and unexpectedly, crossed the Dijlah and attacked Bagh-
dad, captured the accursed Wazir, and the Shahnah [In-
tendant] whom the infidel Mughals had installed there,
and cut them both to pieces. As many of the dependents
of those accursed ones as fell into their hands, and the
whole of the Christians of Baghdad they seized, and des-
patched all of them to hell, and wreaked as much ven-
geance upon those accursed ones as they [the Musalmans]
were capable of, and withdrew with all speed. When in-
formation of this reached the camp of the Mughals, a body
of cavalry was despatched to Baghdad. The remnant of
the Musalmans had departed, and with expedition ; and
not one among those holy-warriors of Islam was taken.

Some persons relate, that Hulau, after he had finished
the affair of Baghdad and the slaughtering of the Musal-
mans, inquired of the Wazir, saying: “ Whence was thy
prosperity ?” The Wazir replied: “ From the seat of the
Khilafat.” Hulaii said: “Since thou didst not observe
the rights of gratitude towards thy benefactors, thou art,
indeed, not worthy of being in my service ;” and he gave
commands so that they despatched the Wazir—God’s
curse upon him !—to hell.’

fashion of the Mughals, which may have some reference to the events our
author refers to, but the particulars are much too long for insertion here.
Suffice it to say that he succeeded in raising a large Musalman force, for a
particular service, with Hulakii’s consent, at Baghdad [according to Rashid-
ud-Din, but we must take at their value the partial statements of that writer],
with which he escaped safely into Misr.

7 After the capture and sack of Baghdad, Bika Timi, brother of Oljae, one
of Hulaki’s wives, was despatched, at the head of a considerable army, to
the southward ; and, on his reaching the Furat, opposite Hillah, the traitor
Sayyids, before referred to, went forth to receive him, constructed a bridge over
the river for him and his army to cross, and received the Mughals with delight.
Finding them firm in their loyalty [!], in a few days, he marched from thence,
and advanced against WAsit, and reached it on the 17th of Rabi’-ul-Awwal,
656 H. The people refused to surrender, and defended the place ; but, after
considerable opposition, it was captured by assault, and 40,000 persons were
put to the sword. Shustar opened its gates ; and Bagrah, and other places
in that part, also submitted to the Mughal yoke. On the 12th of Rabi’-ul.
Akhir, Bika Timir rejoined the main army ; and on the 19th of the same
month, the envoys of Halab, who had come to Baghdad, were sent off, bearing
the insolent letter, concocted by the Shi’ah confidant and counsellor of the
Mughal barbarian—the Khwajah Nasir-ud-Din, the Tisi. The letter is as
follows :—‘‘ We reached the camp before Baghdad in the year 656, and the
noise of the unsparing men was terrible. We challenged the sovereign of that

1262 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

ACCOUNT OF THE MARCH OF HULAO TOWARDS HALAB
AND SHAM.

Hulaii, the Mughal, after he had satisfied his heart on
the matter of Baghdad, moved towards Halab, Mayya-

city, but he refused to come; and upon him is verified the saying: ‘We
seized it with a frightful violence’ [KuR’AN: lvi., 88]. We said to hin,
‘We have pressed thee to submit thyself to us. If thou wilt, then wilt thou
find peace and happiness’ [Ibid. Ixxiii., 16]: ‘if thou refusest, thou wilt
experience shame and misfortune. Do not act like the animal which, with
his feet, discovered the instrument of his death [and heeded not], or as he,
who, with his own hand, cut the partition of his own nose. Thou wilt then
be of the number of those whose works are vain, whose efforts in this
present life have been wrongly directed, and who imagine they do the
work which is right’ [Ibid. xviii., 103-4]. Nothing is impossible to God.
‘Peace be with the man who follows the way whither God directs’ !”
(एत. xxxv. 18].

Soon after the events related above Arbil was invested.

After the capture of Baghdad, on account of the excessive heat and thirsti-
ness of that territory, Hulaikii, without making any longer stay there, marched
from his camp at the Kubbah-i-Shaikh-ul-Mukdarim, on the 23rd of Safar, and
returned to Khankin, where he had left a part of his चतवं and heavy war
materials, By this time, the treasures of Baghdad, and the valuables taken
in the fortresses of the Mulhaidah, and such other plunder as had been
carried away from the frontiers of Riim, Arman, Karkh, and other parts, had
been collected there, in the royal treasury, which, along with his adviser,
Nagir-ud-Din, son of ’Ala4-ud-Din, the Sahib or Wazir of Rai, Hulaiki
despatched towards Agarbaijan. Malik Majd-ud-Din, the Tabrizi, who was
one of the ingenious and skilful men of that country, was directed to construct 2
strong fortress on a mountain on the shore of the little sea of Vrumi and Salmas—
the Lake Urumiah—and to melt down all this treasure into कवल or ingots
—the only thing in the nature of coin ever mentioned in the accounts of
the Mughals at this period—and place them for safe keeping in the new
stronghold.

Hulakii then marched from JKhankin on his return to his srdi near
Hamadin, and, after some time, marched into Azgarbaijan. After he reached
Maraghah, Badr-ud-Din-i-Lili, ruler of Mausil, presented himself at the end
of Rajab, 656 H.—July, 1258 a.D.—being then over ninety years of age, to pay
homage. He was favourably received, for he also had acted a traitorous part
in aiding—under compulsion, as a vassal of the infidels—the enemies of his
faith. He was allowed to depart, shortly after, on the 6th of Sha’ban. On the
7th, Sultin ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Kais of Riim arrived— the Raugzat-ug-Safa says he
joined the Khan’s camp at Tabriz before the advance to Baghdid—and, nest
day, was followed by his brother, Rukn-ud-Din. "Izz-ud-Din had exasperated
Hulakii, because he had ventured to oppose the Nii-yin, Tanjii, and his forces,
but, by a simple stratagem of his own, which flattered the vanity of Hulaki,
and the countenance of the latter’s Christian Khatiin, Dukiz or [प he
was forgiven. On the 14th of the same month, the Ata-Bak, Sa’d-ud-Din,
Abi-Bikr, the Salghiiri ruler of Fars, also presented himself in the Khin’s
camp, ‘‘to congratulate him on the capture of Baghdad”

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1263
farikin, and Amid. This territory they style the Diyar-i-

About this time command was given to construct the Ragad-i-Il-Khani, or
ll-Khani Observatory, referred to in a previous note.

When Hulakii proposed to move against Baghdad, he detached the
Ni-yin, Arkti, with a considerable force, against the exceedingly strong
fortified town of Arbil [Arbela of European writers, some fifty miles W. of
which the Macedonian Alexander defeated Dara the Persian], held by Taj-ud-
Din, son of Salayah, styled the Lord of Arbil. He, on being summoned,
came down, and submitted, but, although he attempted to induce the Kurds,
who inhabited and garrisoned it, to submit, they would not hear of it, and
reviled him for proposing it. All Arktii’s endeavours to take it were fruitless.
He sought aid from Badr-ud-Din-i-Lili, but, before his help came, the Kurds
sallied out, burnt the Mughal catapults, and slew a great number of the
enemy. Badr-ud-Din-i-Lili, having arrived to his aid, advised him to retire,
and give up the attempt to take it then ; but tu wait until the heat compelled the
Kurds to retire to the higher hills before any further effort was made, as it would
be impossible to take it by force, though it might be obtained by stratagem.
Arktii accordingly gave up the attempt, and retired to Tabriz, leaving Badr-
ud-Din-i- Lili to gain possession of it, when the Kurds should have retired to
the higher ranges from the excessive heat, after which he was to destroy the
defences. This was subsequently done; and the Kurds retired into Sham.
The unfortunate Taj-ud-Din was made the victim of the refusal of the Kurds
to surrender the place ; and he was taken to Hulakii’s presence, and, by his
orders, was butchered.

ॐ The envoys having returned from Sham with unfavourable replies from
the Amirs and Hakims of that territory, Hulakii determined to march against
them. Previous to his entering I-ran-Zamin, the Sultan of Halab, the Malik
Un-Nasir, had despatched his Wazir, Zain-ud-Din, Hafigi, to the urdé of
Mangi Ka’an, tendering his homage, and in return received a farman couched
in conciliatory and favourable words—the Fanikati says a yarligh, confirming
him in his dominions, and a péezah of exemption from tribute. When Hulaki
entered I-ran-Zamin, Un-Nasir still continued to express his loyalty and sub-
mission, but, secretly. Nevertheless, his proceedings became known to the
other rulers in Sham, and they conspired against him; and he was forced to
seek aid from Hulaki, and fled to his camp. These facts urged the latter
still more in his determination to reduce those rulers to submission. Before
setting out, he informed Malik Badr-ud-Din-i-Lili, that he should excuse him
from accompanying him on this expedition, on account of his great age, but
that his son, Malik Salih, should be sent in his place [with a contingent, as a
hostage for his father]. His son arrived in due time ; and Turkan Khiatiin,
daughter of the unfortunate Sultan, Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, who had
been brought up, from an infant, in the Haram of one of the Mughal Khiatiins,
and who had been sent along with Hulaki, by Mangi’s command, in order
that he might bestow her in marriage on some suitable person in I-ran-Zamin,
was united to him.

Hulakii now put his troops in motion from Azarbaijan. The Ni-yin,
Kaibuka, was despatched at the head of a strong force, forming the van ; the
troops under the Nii-yin, Siinjak, formed the right of his army, while the
Nii-yin Tanjii led the left [Rashid-ud-Din says Tanji and Sangkiir led the
right]; and, on the 22nd of Ramazan, 657 H.—2oth September, 1258 A.D.,

Hulakii set out with the centre, or main body, towards Shim.

1264 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Bakr ; and this is the country of the son of Shihab-ud-

On reaching the Ala-Tak, or Tagb, or Dagh, all three of which forms are
correct, he was much pleased with the pasturage thereabouts, and gave it the
name of Lanba [also written Labna]—Saghiit [ol (> or LJ], and, ina
place therein, built a Sarde for himself. It lies a few miles to the west of
Bayazid, a place often mentioned of late, and near the N. shore of the Lake
Wan [vul. Van], near the head waters of the eastern branch of the Furat,
[Euphrates] ; and, by way of Akhlat, he entered the te:ritory of the Kurds.
They were particularly obnoxious to the Mughals, for they had, under the
banner of the later Khalifahs, routed them on several occasions ; and wher-
ever they were found they were mercilessly butchered. On reaching the
Diyar-i-Bakr, Hulakii first despatched his son, Yishmit, with the Niu-yin,
Siintae, against Mayy4-farikin [Martyropolis], and Marddin, while Malik
Salih was sent against Amid [Amadia], but certainly of without a Mughal,
and a Mughal force, to look after him. Our author, however, distinctly
states, that Malik Salih was with the Shah-zadah, Yiishmit, at the investment
of Mayy4-farikin. Hulakii then proceeded to reduce Riihah, and, after little
effort, gained possession of it. He then attacked Danisur, Harran, and
Nisibin, took them by storm, massacred the people, and sacked the places.
He then crossed the Furat, and, suddenly and unexpectedly, appeared before
Halab. The inhabitants, aware of the strength of the place, resolved to
defend it. It was closely invested, and held out for a week, but, after that
time, it was assaulted and captured in Zi-Hijjah, the Mughals having effected
a lodgment at the Bab-ul-’Irak, or ’Irak Gateway: the citadel held out for
forty days after that. Fakhr-ud-Din, Saki, who was acquainted with the
place, was put in charge of the city and fortress, and the Bakhshi, Tikal,
was made Shahnah [Intendant]. The Habib-us-Siyar, however, states
that Hulaki, after promising the people of Halab safety for their lives and
property to induce them to surrender, made a general massacre of them, and
sacked the city during seven days. The capture of the strong fortress of
Hazam, west of Halab, next followed ; and the inhabitants, although their
lives had been solemnly promised them, were all massacred. On leaving Halah,
however, a general complaint was made against Fakhr-ud-Din’s tyranny, and
he was put to death; and the Wazir of the Malik-un-Nasir, Zain-ud-Din,
Hafizt, before referred to, was put in charge of the administration. After this,
Hulakii prepared to attack Damashk, but the authorities there, having taken
warning from the fate of -Halab, made overtures, on the arrival of the van of
his army, through certain Bulghari merchants, and submitted. With the
capitulation of Damasbk, all Sham came under the sway of the Mughals.

It was at this juncture that the Nii-yin Shiktiir or Shiktiir, who had been
despatched by Hulakii to his brother’s presence after the capture of Baghdad
(Rashid-ud-Din, when mentioning the despatch of Mangii’s share of the
plunder, says the Nii-yin, sent in charge of it, was called प्रादु), arrived in
his camp, near Halab, having come with all possible speed, bringing him the
tidings of Mangii Ka’an’s death. Hulakii’s sorrow was great, but he kept it
secret within his own breast, and suddenly resolved to return into Agarbaijan,
in expectation that troubles would arise respecting the succession. He set out
without further delay, leaving the Ni-yin, Kaibika, the Naem4n, to guard his
conquests in Sham ; and reached Akhlat, 24th of Jamadf-ul-Akhir, 658 H.

In a ^" History of Persia,” by Sir John Malcolm, the author, quoting Des
Guignes, states [p. 423, vol. I.] that ‘‘ Hulakoo”’ was ‘‘desirous of returning

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1265

Din-i-Ghazi-i °-Malik-ul-’Adil, of Sham, and his [the son’s]
title is Malik-ul-Kamil. He is a man of great godliness
and sincere piety.

The cause of Hulaii’s proceeding into that territory was
this. The son of Malik Shihab-ud-Din-i-Ghazi was Malik
of Mayya-farikin, Marddin,' and Amid; and these three
towns [cities] and fortresses of that territory appertained
to him. When the army of Jurmaghiin, and the Ni-in,
Taji [2] प्र], who subdued Arran, Azarbaijan, and ’Irak,
carried their incursions to the frontiers of this territory,
the Maliks on those confines all requested Mughal Shah-
nahs [Intendants], and this son of Malik Shihab-ud-Din-i-
Ghazi—the Malik-ul-Kamil [Muhammad]—determined to
proceed and reach the presence of Mangii Khan, [and did so, ]
and, from him, he obtained a special honorary dress.” The
reason of his obtaining it was this, that, at a drinking party,
Mangii requested the son of Malik Shihab-ud-Din-i-Ghazi
to drink wine, and he refused, and did not drink it.
Mangii Khan inquired of him the reason of his refusal.

to Tartary to take possession of the government of his native country,” now
become °" vacant,” but that ‘‘the defeat of his general by the prince of the
Mamelukes [Mamliiks?] compelled him to abandon the design,” etc., etc.
This however is as far from being correct as the statement at page 382 of the
same volume, that ‘‘ Hulakoo” was ^^ the son of Chenghis.” See last para. of
note >, at page 1279.

9 If Idid not put an izafat here, which stands for ‘‘ son of,” I should make a
great blunder. The person referred to is styled Al-Malik-ul-Mugaffar, Shihab-
ud-Din—by some entitled, Taki-ud-Din-Al-Ghazi—son of Al-Malik-ul-’ Adil,
Abi-Bikr, son of Aiyiib, son of Shadi, Al-Kurdi ; and, consequently, Shihab-
ud-Din-Al-Ghazi was a nephew of Sultan Salih-ud-Din, Yisuf. The Malik-
ul-’ Adil, during his lifetime, entrusted the government of the different parts of
his kingdom to his sons, of whom he had several, but this particular branch
never ruled over Sham or in Misr. The Malik-ul-Kamil, Muhammad, suc-
ceeded his father as ruler of Mayya-farikin and its dependencies, in 642 H.
See page 226. See also Calcutta Text, page rrr, line 11.

1 Marddin was under a different ruler at this period, but he may, previously,
have been subject to Shihab-ud-Din-i-Ghazi. See note >, page 1275, para. 13.

3 It is stated in Alfi that the Malik-ul-Kamil was the first of any of the rulers
of those parts to proceed to the presence of Mangii Ka’an, in consequence of
which he was received and treated with great honour. He subsequently re-
ceived a yarlirk confirming him in his territory, and a pdesah or exemption
from all taxes and public burdens. The fdezak was not peculiar to the
Mughals.

3 The word used is ‘‘ sharab,”’ not necessarily wine, but drink of any sort.
Here, however, intoxicating drink is referred to, probably the Mughal beverage,
fermented mare’s milk.

1266 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

He replied: “ Because it is forbidden by the Musalman
religion ; and I will not act contrary to my faith.” Mangi
Khan was pleased with this speech, and, in that very
assembly, invested him with the tunic he had on, and
showed him great honour. From this incident it appears
that the dignity inherent in the Musalman faith is, every-
where, advantageous, both unto infidel and Musalman.

In short, when Hulaii was appointed to proceed into
the land of I-ran, Mangii Khan commanded that the Malik-
ul-Kamil should return towards ’Ajam along with Hulai,
and they reached the territory of Irak. Hulaai deter-
mined to molest Baghdad, and had directed the Malik-ul-
Kamil, son of Malik Shihab-ud-Din-i-Ghazi, that, from
his territory, he should bring 7000 horse and 20,000 foot
to Baghdad, and render assistance. The son of Malik
Shihab-ud-Din-i-Ghazi replied : “The extent of my forces
is not so great that it is possible to furnish such a number:
more than about 2000 horse and 5000 or 6000 foot I am
unable to bring.” Hulati importuned him in demanding
a larger number of cavalry, and the Malik-ul-Kamil एल
sisted in his reply ; and Hulai, in secret, said to his Wazir,‘
who was a Musalman, an eminent man of Samrkand:
“It seems to me that Kamil meditates rebellion in his
mind, and that he will not join with us; and it is neces-
sary to put him to death.” The Samrkandi Musalman
Wazir was fond of the Malik-ul-Kamil, and he, secretly,
acquainted him with this idea and design. The next day,
the Malik-ul-Kamil went to Hulat and asked permission
to go out hunting. He set out from that place [where
they then were], accompanied by eighty horsemen of his
own; and, with the utmost expedition, got out of the
Mughal camp, and pushed on towards his own country,
so that, in the space of seven days, he reached it, and
gave orders to put to death all the Mughal Shahnahs
{Intendants] * in his territory, by pinning them against the

4 The Calcutta Printed Text leaves out Hulaii here, and so, as that text
stands, the Malik-ul-Kamil said this to his Wazir: not Hulaii to his Minister !
The Editors must have been much enlightened from their own version. The
same text is defective a few lines farther on.

$ Located in his cities and territory. The text is defective here, in all copies,
respecting these Shahnahs. Ilere the best British Museum Text ends, all the
rest being wanting. `

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1267

walls by means of five spikes—one mortal one being driven
into the forehead, and four others into the feet and hands.

When three days passed, since his disappearance, Hulai
became aware of the fact of his flight; and despatched
horse and foot in pursuit of him, but they did not find him,
and again returned.

The Malik-ul-Kamil, son of Malik Shihab-ud-Din-i-
Ghazi, when he reached his own territory, despatched
emissaries to the presence of Zahir, the Malik-un-Nisir,‘
and solicited his assistance, and that he would assemble
his troops and come [along with him] to the seat of the
Khilafat, Baghdad. The Malik-un-Nasir agreed to aid
him ; and the son of Malik Shihab-ud-Din-i-Ghazi [i. €. the

¢ The Calcutta Text is deplorably bad here again, indeed throughout this
Chapter.

When it became known that Hulakii meditated hostility towards the Khali-
fah, and had prepared to move against Baghdad, the Malik-ul-Kamil, Mubam.
mad, as might naturally be expected, could not look on calmly with folded
arms and see the successor of his Prophet, and head of the Musalman faith,
assailed, and the seat of the Khalifah’s power, and centre of Islam, captured,
and sacked by infidels. He therefore had gone to the Malik-un-Nasir, ruler of
Sham, and endeavoured to induce him and others to join him with their forces,
and march to the Khalifah’s support, as our author also states, but the Malik-
un-Nasir showed carelessness, selfishness, and negligence, in the matter until it
was too late, and the opportunity lost.

This ruler must not be confounded with the Malik-un-Nasir, Da’iid, son of
the Malik-ul-Mu’aggam, Sharaf-ud- Din, ’Isa, who was a grandson of the Malik-
ul-’Adil, Saif-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr [brother of Sultan Salah-ud-Din, Yiisuf) :
the titles of these Kiirdiah Princes are so much alike that they are liable to be
confused. The ruler of Halab and Shan, here referred to, is the Malik-un-
Nasir, Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf [not Zahir; he was named after his great grand-
father], son of the Malik-ul-’Aziz, son of the Malik-ug-Zahir, Ghiyag-ud-Din,
Abii-Mansir-i-Ghizi, third son of Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf. The Malik-ul-’Aziz
died in 634 H., and was succeeded by the Malik-un-Nasir. Rubruquis saw
the envoy of the Malik-un-Nasir at Mangti Ka’an’s Court. See note + page
221.

We are informed, in the ‘‘ Mongols Proper’ [page 205], from D’Ohsson, ap-
parently, that ^" Syria was at this time ruled over by Nassir Saladin Vussuf, a
great grandson of the great Saladin,” while a little farther on [pp. 205-208]
we are likewise informed, that his name was ^“ Prince Nassir Seif ud din ibn
Yagmur Alai ud din el Kaimeri” ! This strange jumble of names, probably,
is the several ways in which ‘‘ the embossed bowl” is made by those ‘‘specially
skilled in their various crafts,” but the above, with some other specimens which
I have given, seem more after “ the case of the western farmer whittling his
own chairs and tables with his pocket knife,” as we are told at p. vii of that
book. Saif-ud-Din, Al-Kaimari, also written Kamiri, was one of the Malik-
un-Nasir’s Amirs. “

1268 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik-ul-Kamil, Muhammad], with the whole of his troops,
horse and foot, marched towards Baghdad [to aid the
Khalifah]. On the way he received information of the
downfall of Baghdad, and the martyrdom of the Lord of
the Faithful. He turned back again with the utmost ex-
pedition, strengthened his fortresses and cities, and gave
intimation to the nomads of his territory, so that the whole
of them sought shelter in places of strength, whilst he
himself entered and took up his quarters in the fortress of
Mayya-farikin, and prepared for holy warfare against the
infidels.

Mayya-farikin is a small city and strong fortress ; and
to the north of it is a mountain of considerable height,
and within the city’ is a monastery [of Christian priests]
which they call Markimah, and that Markimah is a place
of sanctity. From the foot of that mountain a large stream
flows, and, in the tag-ad [low ground where water collects |
in which the city stands, much water collects ; and, to the
south of the city are gardens, and, to the east of it, are
tombs. The place has a fortified hill, and walls with
ramparts [of stone], and a parapet.°

? The Calcutta Printed Text is deplorably bad here, and places the mar-
ktimah on the top of the mountain, which is contrary to fact.

ॐ See note 8, page 334, for an explanation of tag-ab. Some copies of the
text, instead of foot of the mountain, have ८2 of the mountain. This stream
is one of the tributaries of the Dijlah or Tigris.

9 It is said to have been surrounded with a strong wall of stone, and to
have possessed two strong castles. ‘‘ Mayya-farikin is a celebrated city in the
Diyar-i-Bakr, near a feeder of the Dijlah or Tigris. There was a church of the
Christians there from the time of the Masika—on whom be peace !—and some
of its walls still remain. They relate that there was a physician whose name
was Maronsa or Marisa, of the kindred of Konstantin, the Lord of Rimiah-
i-Kibri [Rome] ; and a daughter of Shapir-i-Zi-l-Aktaf [that is ‘‘ Shapur of
the Shoulder-Blades,”’ because he caused every ’Arab who fell into his power
to be deprived of his shoulder-blades. Such is well known from the Persian
historians, but GIBBON, in his History, assures us, on the authority of D’HEr-
BELOT, that ‘‘Doulacnaf,” as he terms it, signifies ‘‘protector of the nation” ! ] had
fallen grievously sick, even unto death, and the physicians of Fars were totally
unable to cure her. Some of Shapiir’s courtiers—lords of his Court—suggested
that it was advisable to send for Maronga, whose skill was famous, and so
Shapiir sent to Konstantin, saying : ‘‘ Send Marongsa,”’ and Konstantin did
so. When Maronsa arrived he set about curing the daughter of Shapiir, and
the remedies he administered had the desired effect, and her cure was brought

about.
‘This good service was dulyappreciated bythe King, and he said to Maronsa:

9 IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1269

After Hulda had released his mind from the affair of
Baghdad, he despatched his son, with the whole of the

५५ Ask of me whatsoever [boon] thy heart desireth.” Marons4 made a request
soliciting that the King would make peace with Konstantin, and Shipir
acceded to his request. Up to this time hostilities were constantly going on
between the two rulers.

‘¢ When Marongi presented himself to take leave on his returning to Riimiah,
Shapiir said: ‘‘Name yet another wish in order that the royal beneficence
may be extended towards thee personally.” Maronga replied: ^^ A vast num-
ber of Christians have been slain [during the late wars]: grant me permission
to collect their bones.” Shapir granted this request likewise ; and a vast
quantity of the bones of the slain Christians were collected together, and
Maronga carried them away with him into his own country.

०५ Konstantin ratified the terms of accommodation, and was greatly pleased at
peace being concluded, and also joyful because of the collection of these bones ;
and he said to Maronsa: ‘‘ Ask some boon of us likewise.” Maronsa said :
‘*I pray that the King will afford me help and assistance in founding a place
suitable [to receive these bones] in my own city and place of abode.” Kon-
stantin acceded to his wishes ; and gave command that all those dwelling near
by Maronsi’s city should help him with the necessary funds.

^ Marongia returned to his usual place of abode [which is not referred to by
name], and founded a city [sic in 44SS.]; and the bones, which he had brought
back from the territory of Shapiir, were deposited in the midst of the walls of
the defences which surrounded it, and it was styled Vio (११५. [? Madriisa sala],
which signifies Madinat-ush-Shahtd—Martyropolis or City of the Martyrs, A
holy man once prophesied respecting it, that it would never be captured by
force, on account of the sanctity which the bones of these martyrs had conferred
upon it, which has proved true.

‘‘ The defences surrounding the place have eight gates, one of which is called
the Bab-ush-Shahwat, or Gate of Desire. Another gate is called the Bab-ul-
Farah wa ul-Ni’am, or Gate of Gladness and of Benefits; and over the gate-
way are two statues carved out of stone—one in the form of a man, who, with
both hands, is making signs of gladness and joy, and that they call the statue
of Gladness. The other figure is that of a man with a mass of rock on his
head, which is the statue of Benefits [received]. In Mayy4-farikin no afflicted
or sorrowful person will be found, but, on the contrary [sic in 4/SS.], all that
is good and excellent.

८८ On the summit of a tower which they call the Burj-i-’Ali bin Wahab, facing
the west, to indicate the 44/ah [the direction to which people turn to pray],
Bait-ul-Mukaddas—Jerusalem—a large cross is set up, and on the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre is another cross like unto it ; and it is said that the same
person designed both crosses.

‘*Maronsa founded a church—our author’s monastery—in the midst of the
city, which he dedicated to Batanus [?] and Barlis— J» 9 Vb:—and that
church remains to this day, in a maha//at or quarter, which is known as the

Rafak-i-Yahiid, and in it is a shrine of black marble, and in the shrine is a
vessel of glass, in which is contained some of the blood of Yiisha’ [@*y:—Joshua]
the son of Nin, and that blood is a cure for every disease. When any leprous
person is anointed with it, it removes the disease. They say that Maronga
: brought this blood away from Rimiah, a gift from Konstantin, at the time of
obtaining permission to depart on his return home.”

1270 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Mughal army,’ into the territory of the Malik-ul-Kamil ;
and a host of infidels advanced to the gate of the fortress
of Mayyda-farikin, and invested it, and commenced an
attack upon it. For a period of three months or more they
sat down before that fortress and besieged it arduously,
and great numbers of the Mughals were killed and sent
to hell, and wounded ; but God knows the truth.’

ACCOUNT OF THE MIRACLE [WHICH HAPPENED IN BE-
HALF] OF THE MUSALMANS OF MAYYA-FARIKIN.

Trustworthy persons of ’Arab and ’Ajam have related
on this wise, that, during the period of three months that
the son of Hulaii carried on hostilities before the gate of
the fortress of Mayy4-farikin,® [the contents of] every
catapult discharged against that fortification from the in-
fidel army came back again, and fell upon the heads of the
infidels themselves, until they brought a famous catapult
from Mausil. On the first day [after it was brought],
they prepared within the fortress fire of zaft‘ [naphtha],

Such, in a very brief form, is the account contained in an old geographer of
Mayya-farikin. European writers, quoting Greek and Syrian authorities, say
Martyropolis was called Nephugard in the Armenian language, and Maifarkat
in the Syrian, and style Marongia, by the name of, Afaru¢ha, and make a bishop
of him.

1 A considerable army, but not the whole by any means.

2 Even the Pro-Mughal writers state that it held out nearly two years.
When Hulakii Khan set out to invade Sham, he despatched, from the Diyar-
i-Bakr, his son Yiighmit, along with the Ni-yins, Ilka and Siintde, and
a considerable army, to invest the town and fortress, or fortified town, of
Mayya-farikin, sending, at the same time, envoys, calling upon the Malik-ul-
Kamil, Muhammad, the ruler of its territory, to submit. This ruler had
already witnessed enough of Mughal duplicity, treachery, and bad faith, and
he replied : ‘‘ Thy words are not tv be believed, and no trust is to be placed
in thee. It is useless to beat cold iron: I am not going to be deceived by thy
words ; and while life lasts I will never submit.” When the agents retumed
with this answer, the Shah-zaidah, Yiighmiit, and his Amirs, prepared for
hostilities. The Malik-ul-Kamil likewise got ready to encounter them; and
he succeeded in making his people as determined as himself to resist the
Mughals to the last. Next day, after the arrival of the enemy in his territory,
he issued forth at the head of a gallant force, and attacked them, both sides
sustaining some loss ; and the Musalmans retired within the walls again.

3 This is the correct way of writing this word according to the vowel pvuints,
and not ‘ Mia-farkin,’ as in note 7, at page 226.

५ The words are in the original fi 43] An ‘essay on the early use of

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1271

and discharged it [the composition] along with the stones
of their catapults, and burnt that other catapult.

During this period of several months that fighting went
on before the gate of the fortress, every day, according to
one statement, by the omnipotence of the Creator, the
Most High and Holy, seven horsemen—according to
another, six, and according to a third account, less than

gunpowder” might be interesting here, but it would be perfectly out of
place. Attempts have been made to prove that gunpowder was known, and
artillery and fire-arms were used some centuries before their recognized date of
approximate introduction. One of the supposed proofs is, that the ‘* Canunj-
Khand ” is said to contain the following :—‘‘ The cal:vers and cannons made a
loud report, when they were fired off, and the noise which issued from the ball
was heard at a distance of ten coss””! Another imaginary proof is, that, in the
416th Chhand of the same poem, it is said :—‘‘ The Zamézr lodged in his
breast, and he fainted away :—thus fell Raf Govind the strength of Dehli.”
Zanbir, and another form of the word, here mean a cross-bow, and what struck
Rai Gobind was a cross-bow bolt, but, because, at the present time, and since
the invention of gunpowder probably, a small swivel carried on a camel’s back
is called by the same name, the word is supposed to be a proof that gun-
powder must have been known in remote times. The literal meaning of
Zanbur is a wasp or hornet, and Zandérak is the diminutive form of the word
—a little hornet. An inflammable composition was often attached to the head
of the bolts, and hence, probably, the expressive name, or from the noise they
made in mid-air.

The Dakhanf historian, Firightah, too, is supposed to have proved the
existence of artillery as early as the year in which our author’s History was
finished, because he had the effrontery to state, according to Briggs’s Revised
ed. of his History [Vol. I., p. 128]—and the same is contained in Dow’s ver-
sion—as rendered in ELLIOT’s INDEX, Vol. I., p. 353, that °^ The Wazir of the
king of Dehli went out to meet an ambassador from Halaku [I have already
shown the error respecting the ‘‘ambassador,”’ so called, at page 859], the
grandson of Changez Khan, with 3000 carriages of fire-works—Alishbdsl.”
Firightah saw guns and fire-arms in the Dakhan, and, without taking the
trouble, apparently, to consider, at once concluded that gun-powder and fire-
arms were nothing new.

The fact is that the previous names of the different missiles, and machines for
discharging them, were retained after the invention of gun-powder, as may be
seen from the statements of numerous Arabian and other writers, and hence all
these ideas have arisen as to the knowledge of gun-powder among the ancients,
and their use of artillery.

As to Firightah’s assertion respecting the ‘‘ 3000 carriages of fire-works,”
it is strange that our author, who is the sole authority for the events of that
period, and who was present on the occasion of the arrival of some emissaries
from Khurasan, and the return to Dehli of another, and describes the pre-
parations in detail [page 856], did not see these ‘‘ 3000 carriages of fire-
works,” which, four hundred years after, Firightah, who derives his information
respecting the period in question from him, or rather from the Tabakat-i-
Akbari—could give an account of. See note 5, page 631.

1272 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

these—clothed in white garments, and with turbans [on
their heads], were wont to saliy down from the fortress
and attack the Mughal forces. They used to despatch
about a hundred or two hundred infidels to hell, while no
arrow, sword, or lance of the infidels used to injure those
white-clad horsemen, until about 10,000 Mughals had
been sent to hell by that band.’ Hulda despatched [ka
Khan * to the presence of his son, saying: “I captured
Baghdad in less than a week [!], and thou art not able to
take a small fortress [like this] in this long period of time.”
His son sent reply, saying: “ Thou didst capture Baghdad
through perfidy, whilst here it is necessary to me to wield
the sword, and every day so many men are killed. It
behoveth not to judge of this place by Baghdad.” When

¢ This number, of course, is pure exaggeration. They slew a great number,
and among them many of the Mughal champions, as well as others.

Among the troops of the Malik-ul-Kamil were two valiant horsemen, one of
whom they used to style Saif-ud-Din, Azkali [,$'—in some 6.5. Arkali—
i! },and the other Kamr-i-Habasgh [? The first word of this name is also written
Kamir—peeS—and also ’Anbar-i-Habashi— “= »s—or the like, but both
are doubtful], and, on this occasion, they each slew ten Mughals; and continued
to keep the fray alive. The second day, the same two cavaliers issued forth,
and slew several notedly brave horsemen among the Mughals; and the third
day they did the same thing, and hurled a number of the enemy in the dust of
contempt. The Mughals began to be terrified of them. On the fourth day,
a Gurji [Georgian], named, bysome, Azmadari, and by others Aznawari, who
was a famous champion, and used even to defeat an army by his prowess, and
who, among the Mughals, was a pattern of valour, resolved to encounter them.
Notwithstanding all this, on his going out, he was killed, after a short resist-
ance ; and his loss filled the Shah-zadah, Yiishmiit, with sorrow. Next day,
the Malik-ul-Kamil placed a very powerful catapult on the walls of the city,
and a number of Mughals were killed by it. The Mughal Amirs, from the
force of that mischievous catapult, were quite powerless, and at a loss what to
do, until they found that Badr-ud-Din-i-Lili, the Hakim of Mausil, had a
catapult more powerful even than this one. They had it produced, and planted
it equally high with, and opposite to, that of the fortress. It so happened, one
day, that both catapults were discharged at the same time, and, as we hear of
cannon-shot, at times, meeting in the air, stones from the coffer or bowl of
either catapult, in which the stones or stone is placed—I do not recollect the
technical term—met in mid air, and were dashed to atoms, to the astonish-
ment of the spectators on both sides. The catapult worked on the Mughal
side however was bumt in the night by a sally from the garrison of Mayya-
farikin ; and their onslaughts on the Mughals reduced them to helplessness.

6 The Calcutta Printed text here has, i/chiin—envoys, etc., instead of the
name of the Mughal leader—the Nii-yin, Ikan, or Ika, but it was Arktii who
was sent with the reinforcements, according to other accounts, for the Ni-yin,
Ilkan, was already with Prince Yighmit’s army.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1273

this message reached Hulaii he commanded: “Say ye to
my son, ‘take care to keep out of my sight, otherwise I
will undoubtedly slay thee ; ” and Hulai took oath and
vowed : “I will capture this fortress in three days.” Then,
with the utmost expedition, he proceeded towards Mayya-
farikin, and set to to attack the place.’

7 Hulakii did not do so, according to Pro-Mughal accounts. Hulaki,
on becoming aware of the state of affairs, despatched the Nii-yin, Arkti,
with a large force, to the assistance of his son, Yiishmiit, with directions
that he should cease his attacks upon the city and fortress, and merely block-
ade it, and allow famine to do the rest, as it was not necessary to give over his
troops to be slaughtered uselessly. Just as Arktii arrived, and had delivered
his message, these two cavaliers from Mayya-farikin issued from the fortress as
usual, and caused confusion among the Mughals. As Arktii had a little wine
in his head at the time, he, without discretion, turned his face towards them
to encounter them ; and they [one of them probably] confronted him. At this
crisis, the Nii-yin, Ilka or Ikan, went forth to the assistance of Arkti, but he
was almost immediately unhorsed by the champions [by the disengaged one ?]
and hurled to the ground. The Mughals, whose ideas of a fair fight seem to
have been peculiar, now rushed in on all sides, and succeeded in rescuing the
two Nii-yins, and, having remounted Ilkan, brought them out of the fight.

In short, these champions continued to sally forth daily, and used to kill
several of the Mughal soldiers. In this manner, a considerable time passed—
over two years, it is said—the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh says, until a whole year ex-
pired—until the defenders were reduced to famine ; and, after having eaten all
their cattle, they ate dogs, cats, and rats, and were, at last, reduced to eat
human flesh, by which means they managed to hold out another month. At
length, they resolved to issue forth, fall on the enemy, and sell their lives
dearly, but the Malik-ul-Kamil, Muhammad, would not permit them to do so,
being resolved to hold out to the last breath. Some few of those within now
sent a letter to the Mughal Shah-zadah, Yiishmit, to this effect: ‘* Within
this place no one remains of those who had the power to offer resistance, and
nought but a few with breath remaining, but body dead, exist, and they are
about to eat each other—the father to eat the son, and the son his parent—to pro-
long their misery a little longer. Ifthe Shah-zadah should now move against
the city and fortress, there is no one to resist him.” Yishmit at once des-
patched Arktii with a force to attack it. On reaching the place he found the
whole of the defenders dead, with the exception of 70 or 80 half-dead persons,
who remained concealed in the houses. The Malik-ul-Kamil, with his brother,
they also found, and conveyed them to the presence of Yushmit. The Mughal
troops set to to plunder, when the two champion cavaliers appeared on the roof
of one of the houses, and were killing with their bows and arrows all who at-
tempted to approach them. Arktii now despatched a strong party of his troops
to endeavour to capture them alive ; and they came upon them in all directions.
Seeing this, these lion-hearted men descended from the house-top; and, with their
shields over their faces, threw themselves upon the Mughals, and fought until
they were slain. The persons found within Mayya-farikin were subsequently
put to the sword, but the Malik-ul-Kamil was sent to Hulakii’s presence, at
the Tal-i-Bashir, a strong fort and small town on a éa/ or hill or mound, two

4M

1274 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.

Every day, as on the previous occasions, several men in
white garments, with turbans,® were wont to come down,
and used to despatch more than two or three hundred in-
fidels to hell. For a period of three days conflicts were
fought, and, subsequently, for three days more, Hulai
continued there, and directed such severe attacks to be
made that 10,000 more infidels went to hell. Hulai then
intimated [to the defenders], saying : “ This fortress belongs
to Tingri, and therefore I have absolved you, but I have
one request to make, and it is this. Show me those white
clad horsemen, that I may look upon them, and see what
sort of men they are.”

When this message reached the people of the fortress,
they with one accord swore the most solemn oath, [say-
ing|: “In the same manner that they are unknown to you,
we likewise know not that band, and know not who they
are.” Hulda replied: “On this account, for the sake of
Tingri, I present unto you, as a propitiatory offering, a
thousand horses, a thousand camels, a thousand cattle, and
a thousand sheep. Send out your confidential people that
they may take possession of them.” The people of the
fortress replied: “We have no want of any offerings of
thine, neither will we send any one out. If thou hast any-
thing to send indeed, send it here, otherwise send the whole
to hell,” so that they [the narrators] relate, that Hula left
there that number of cattle, horses, camels, and sheep, and
that he raised the investment,’ and went towards a place,

days’ journey N. of Halab, on the great caravan route from the latter city to
Isfahan through Mesopotamia and Assyria.

$ They were Musalmans our author means.

9 Our author is rather too liberal in slaughtering here.

) This was the rumour, probably, which reached our author at Dihli, about
the time he completed his History, and when no authentic accounts could have
ebeen received. When the unfortunate Malik-ul-Kamil, Muhammad, was
brought before Hulaki, the latter began to enumerate all his misdeeds, the
greatest of which, doubtless, was that of defending his own, and said: ‘‘ My
brother showed goodness to thee, and treated thee with royal favour, and the
return for all this is what thou hast now done.” After that he commanded
that he should be put to death under the most frightful tortures. .They first
starved him nearly to death, and then cut the flesh from his limbs, and com-
pelled him to eat of it, until, after he had lingered in this manner for some
time, death came to relieve him. The Malik-ul-Kamil, Muhammad, was a
devout and abstinent man—a recluse almost—and supported himself by the
needle and making garments. These events happened in 657 H.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1275

a verdant plain, which they call the Sahra-i-Miish* [the
Rat’s Plain], where there is soft mud and stagnant water,
and sank in it; while some have related that he encoun-
tered the army of Sham in battle, and was vanquished,
and annihilated along with all his army, and went to
hell.

Others again relate that the Malik-un-Nasir of Halab
sought help from all the forces of Sham, and from the
Farangs [Franks]; and that, numerous forces having
collected about him, Hulai, the accursed, is, up to this
date, occupied with them, and has, once, sustained a severe
defeat ; so that, what may be the issue of the matter who
shall say? Please God, that it may be victory and
success to the Musalmans.’

The Pro- Mughal writers would not mention such a matter as this, because,
when they wrote, their Mughal masters were Musalmins, and naturally
ashamed of such brutal proceedings.

> A town of this name appears in the maps, in this same locality, near the
banks of the eastern branch of the upper Euphrates, about fifty miles west of
the Lake of Wan. The valley of the Furat, N. of the Ala Dagh. mentioned in
note 8, page 1263, para. 3, is referred to. The city of the Miish lies to the west.

3 It was Kaibika’s defeat, no doubt, which our author heard of. Newsdid
not travel fast in his day, and people at Dihli were in doubts, at the time he
finished his work, as to Hulakii’s subsequent proceedings. It 15 curious to read
the reports which reached our author ; certainly there was some little truth in
them, and, therefore, I will, before closing the subject, give a few details
respecting the events in question.

That our author, at such a distance, may have been partially misled, is not
surprising, but what can one think of Ibn Batiitah, who, having travelled into
Sham, and other countries, some seventy-six years afterwards, could write such
utter nonsense as the following : ‘‘ Jengiz [but Chingiz in the original] Khan
got possession of Mawara El Nahr, and destroyed Bokhara, Samarkand, and
El Tirmidh : killed the inhabitants, taking prisoners the youth only, etc., etc.
He then perished, having appointed Azs son, Hilakii, to succeed him. Hilaki
(soon after) entered Bagdad, destroyed it, and put to death the Calif El

Mostaasem [Khalifah Al-Musta’sim, in the original] of the house of Abbas,
and reduced the inhabitants. He then proceeded with his followers to Syria, ©
until divine Providence put an end to his career: for he was defeated by the
army of Egypt, and made prisoner |” WLrx¥’s Translation.

Hulakii had called upon the ruler of Misr to submit and acknowledge fealty
to the Mughals. At that time, the ruler was a Turk-min. The first of these
Tulers was ’Izz-ud-Din, I-bak, a Turk-man, who, after the termination of the
dynasty of the Bani Aiyitb [See Section xv., page 203], in the latter part of
Rabi’-ul-Akhir, 648 H., obtained predominance over Misr. He set up Salab-
ud-Din, Khalil, son of the Malik-ul-Kamil, of the Aiyibi dynasty, who was
then only ten years old, while he himself conducted the affairs of the kingdom,
but the young Prince was set aside, and is no more referred to. On several

4 # 2

1276 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

One among the comers from those parts has stated to

occasions, hostilities arose between 'Izz-ud-Din, I-bak, and the Malik-un-
Nasir of Sham. After reigning seven years, ?Izz-ud-Din, I-bak, had returned
home one day from playing at the game of Chaugan, and on reaching his palace
ordered the bath to be prepared. He entered it, and, while he was at the bath,
Muhsin-i-Jauhari, one of his retainers, accompanied by a slave, entered, and
slew him. This happened on the night of Wednesday [our Tuesday night],
the 11th of Muharram—but some say the 25th, and others that it was the 25th
of Rabi’-ul-Awwal—655 H. The following day, Wednesday, the assassins
were taken and hung. "¶ 22-0१-17), I-bak, was a man of talent and valour,
but a blood-shedder. The Amirs and Ministers of the kingdom of Misr, on
this, set up I-bak’s son, the Malik-ul-Mansir, Nir-ud-Din,’Ali; but in Rabi’-
ul-Akhir, 655 H., Saif-ud-Din, Kudiiz, a Turk-man, became his Ata-Bak, and
Amir-ul-Umra, and soon after set aside Niir-ud-Din, ’Ali, and under the title
of Malik-ul-Mugaffar, usurped the sovereignty of Misr for himself.

A number of the leaders and soldiery of the rulers of Misr and Sham, at
this period, had been formerly in the service of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm
Shah. After the battle at Akhlat they had retired into Sham, under their
Sardars, Barkat Khan, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din Khan, son of Baltarak or
Yaltarak, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Sadik Khan, son of Mangaka or Mangieki,
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kashli Khan, son of Bek-Arsalin, Atlas Khan [in
some I-yal-Arsalan], and Nasgir-ud-Din, Fughamiri [s¢*s—also written
Kaimiri, and even Kushairi— s,3], and others, See pages 230 and 766.

When Hulakii moved towards Sham, they kept out of the way, but, after
he left and returned towards Azarbaijan again, they assembled, and tumed
their faces towards Misr and Kahirah [vul. Cairo], and stated their distress to
Saif-ud-Din, Kudiiz. He treated them generously and liberally, and took
them all into his service ; and they became the bulwark of his kingdom.
When the Mughal envoys reached the presence of Kudiz, he consulted with
the Khwarazmi Amirs. It appears that they had news of the death of Mangii
Ka’an by the time these envoys arrived, and they exhorted him to resist the
Mughals, particularly as Kaibika had been left in those parts [in Sham—in
Halaband Damashk]. Nasir-ud-Din, Fughamiri or Kaimiri, urged that it was
‘‘far better to die fighting honourably than trust to the good faith of Mughals,
who never fulfilled their most solemn promises and compacts, as witness the
case of Khir Shah ; the Lord of the Faithful, the Khalifah ; Husaém-ud-Din,
"Akah; and the Sahib of Arbil.” Kudiiz approved of this, and thought it
best, since the Mughals had carried their devastations into so many parts, even
as far as the territory of Riim, in such wise that neither seed remained to sow,
nor oxen to plough the land, to be beforehand with them, and attack them,
and so save Migr from invasion, or perish honourably.

The principal of the Amirs of Misr, Bandkadar, advised that the envoys
should be treated in Mughal fashion and put to death, and that they should
fall unawares upon Kaibiika. The emissaries accordingly were put to death
one night, and, the following morning, the troops of Migr set out. A Mughal
Amir, Paedar by name, who, with a force of Mughals, formed the advanced
post towards Migr, as soon as he became aware of this movement, sent a courier
10 Kaibika, who was then at Ba’albak, warning him of their coming. Kaibika
directed him to hold his ground firmly, and expect his speedy arrival. It so hap-
pened, that Kudiiz drove Paedar back as far as the banks of the river of ’Asi—
the Orontes—and then, with much military skill, disposed of the greater part of

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1277

this effect, that Hulai has gone to hell, and that his gon

his troops in ambush, and, with the remainder, took up his position on a hill
near the ’Ayn-i-Jalit—Goliath’s Spring—to act on the defensive, Kaibika
having arrived near by with a great army. The Mughals, seeing but a small
force posted on a hill, proceeded to attack it, upon which, Kudiuz, after a slight
opposition, faced about, and pretended to fly. The Mughals, on this, became
still more daring, and pursued them, inflicting some loss on the troops of
Kudiiz; but, when they were fairly drawn into the ambuscade, the troops of
Misr attacked them front and rear, and on both flanks, throwing them into
confusion. The engagement lasted from early morning to noon; and Kaibika
was charging the Misris in person, in all directions, and endeavoured to restore
order, although advised to fly, to which he replied : ‘‘ Since death cannot be
escaped, better to meet it in fame and honour. If a single man out of this
army is able to reach the presence of the Khan, let him say to him that his
servant, Kaibuka, did not wish to return ashamed. Tell him not to take this
reverse to heart: let him merely imagine that the wives of his soldiers have
not become pregnant this year, and that his mares have not foaled.” At this
juncture he was brought from his horse to the ground and made captive.
After the capture of Kaibiika, the Naem4n, the remnant of the Mughal army
that remained, concealed themselves in a cane forest, in the Wadi, near by the
scene of the battle, and Kudiiz gave order to fire it in all directions, which was
done; and they were all burnt.

After this, Kaibika, the Naemfn, was brought with his hands bound, before
Kudiz, the Turk-man, who said to him: "^ Kaibika ! because that thou hast
shed a vast deal of innocent blood unjustly, hast destroyed chiefs and great
men after getting them into thy power by false and treacherous promises, and
hast ruined numbers of ancient families, thou hast now to answer for all this, and
suffer the punishment such acts call for.” Kaibiika boldly replied, according
to the Pro-Mughal writers: ‘‘If, at thy hands, I am killed, I hold it to come
from the Great God, not from thee; and, when Hulakii Khan hears of my
death, the sea of his wrath will rise into such a storm, that, from Azarbaijan
to Misr’s gate, the ground will be levelled beneath the hoofs of the Mughals’
horses, and they will carry away the sands of Misr in their horses’ nose-bags.
He has 300,000 [some have 600,000] horsemen like unto me: account them
one the 1659." Kudiiz answered him [here again was the hereditary enmity
between Turks and Mughals: Kudiiz was a Turk-min, and Bandkadar, his
Wazir, a Khifchak Turk]: “ Boast not so much, perfidious man, of the powers
of the horsemen of Turin. They effect their purposes by treachery, perfidy,
and fraud: not manfully and openly like the hero, Rustam.’”’ After a few
more taunts on either side, Kudiiz had the head of the Nii-yin, Kaibiika struck
off and sent to Misr. He then pushed on with his forces, as far as the Furit,
plundered the Mughal «rds, made captives of their women and children, and
‘‘carried them away into the house of bondage ;” slew the whole of the
Mughal Shahnahs and officials located in Sham [Syria] by Hulaki, with the
exception of the Shahnah of Damaghk, who fled the very night the news of
the defeat of Kaibika reached him. The ‘‘ horsemen of Tiiran” did not
‘* carry away the sands of Misr in their nose-bags,”’ as Kaibika vainly boasted,
but they carried off defeat again and again.

The overthrow of Kaibuka, the Naeman, is not to be found in the Fanakatj :
these defeats are ignored, and victories only chronicled.

Bandkadar above referred to, who was a Turk of Khifchak, under the style and

1278 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

has been set up at the city of Rai in his father’s place;
but God knows the truth.

title of Malik-ut-Tahir [called Sultin Firiiz, by Guzfdah], dethroned the
Malik-ul-Mugaffar, Saif-ud-Din, Kudiiz, and succeeded to the sovereignty
of Misr, in Zi-Ka’dah, 658 H. To him Ahmad, son of Muhammad, son of
Ibrahim, son of Abi-Bikr, son of Khallikan, a native of Arbal [Arbela of
Europeans], near Mausil, known generally as Ibn Khallikdn, dedicated his
celebrated biographical work. He went into Migr in 654 H. Fastiat, also
written Fustat of Misr, was Bandkadar’s capital.

I must go back a little. On the approach of Hulaikii towards Sham, the
Malik-un-Nasir, Salah-ud-Din, Viisuf, son of the Malik-ul-’Aziz, fled from
Halab, and, taking his family with him, sought safety in the desert of Karak.
Subsequently, after Hulakii retired from Sham, Kaibika was desirous of
investing him therein, but the Malik-un-Niasir agreed to submit, on his safety
being promised ; and he came down, and delivered up that fortress. Kaibika
sent him to the presence of Hulaki, who treated him well, and promised
to restore him to the sovereignty over Sham when he, Hulaki, should
have subdued Misr. How Mughal promises were fulfilled the following
will show.

The very day before the news of the Nii-yin Kaibika's overthrow on the
27th of Ramazan, 657 H., reached Hulaki, near the Ala Tagh, on his way
back into Azarbaijan, he had conferred on the Malik-un-Niasir the rulership of
Damashk, and had permitted him to set out thither, escorted by 300 Saki—
Shami ?—horse. On the news of the disaster, a great change came over
Hulakii ; and, at this juncture, a Shami, who was an old enemy of the Malik-
un-Nasir, influenced the mind of Hulakii against him. He insinuated that he
was not loyally disposed, and related matters which produced such an effect,
that 300 Mughal cavalry were forthwith despatched in pursuit of him, The
advance party of that force, having overtaken the Malik-un-Nfsir, stated that
they had orders, from the Badghah, to give him a feast, wherever they might
meet him ; and, with this plea, got him to alight. They began to ply him
with wine, at this entertainment; and, when he was sufficiently intoxicated
[and his escort too, probably], the Mughals fell upon him, and slew him, and
every one of his party, with the single exception of one man, a Maghrabi, a
pretended astrologer, whom they allowed to escape. This happened at the
close of the year 657 H., but there is another account in which it is stated that
the Malik-un-Nasir was put to death in 658 H. [early in the year—which is
much the same], on receipt of the news of Kaibiika’s defeat, together with his
son, the Malik-ut-Tahir, and all who belonged to them, and that, thereby,
that branch of the Aiyiibi Kurdi dynasty terminated

After this act, the Ni-yin, Ikan, with a numerous army was despatched
into Sham to recover what had been lost, and take vengeance for this defeat.
Rashid-ud-Din says, Hulakii intended to have done so himself, but was
prevented through the disturbances which arose consequent upon the death of
Mangii Ka’an

In the year 658 H., the Shah-zidah, Yiishmit, accompanied by the Amir,
Siintae, after the affair of Mayya-farikin, by command of his father, proceeded
to subdue the territory of Marddin. When Yighmit and his forces appeared
before that fortified city, they were amazed on beholding its strength. 1115 de-
scribed in the MASALIK WA MAMALIK, and in IBN HAUKAL, as an impregnable

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1279

ANOTHER MIRACLE [WROUGHT IN BEHALF] OF THE
MUSALMANS.

` Trustworthy persons related in this manner, that the
son of Malik Badr-ud-Din-i-Li-li, the Mausili, was along
with the son of Hulai, and used to witness those conflicts,
the overthrow of the Mughals, and the triumph of the
holy warriors of Mayya-farikin [as already recorded]. He
used to be filled with wonder at the circumstance, and
was wont to extol the Divine assistance, until, one night
he saw in a dream the sacred beauty of the sun‘ of the
universe, Muhammad, the Apostle of God—the blessing
of the Almighty be upon him and guard him !—who,

fortress on a mountain, which produces é:/aur or crystal, and measures, from
the bottom to the summit, two 2757645. Yiighmiit despatched the Ni-yin
Arktii, to the Malik-us-Sa’id, the Sahib, or Lord of Miarddin, to induce him
to submit. He, too, refused, saying, that he had always contemplated doing
so, but found that not the least reliance could be placed on Hulakii’s most
solemn promises, as might be judged of from the murder of Khir Shah, the
Khalifah, and many others, and that to die sword in hand was far pre-
ferable to being put to death under brutal torments. Further, that his fortress
was strong, and he intended to defend it. It held out for eight months, during
which the other parts of his territory of Marddin, Danisur, and Arzan, near
by, had fallen into the hands of the Mughals, when a pestilence broke out, and
famine arose, and the Malik-us-Sa’id fell ill. He had two sons. The eldest,
Mugaffar-ud-Din, wished his father to surrender, who would not hear of it.
Mugaffar-ud-Din then determined, in order to save the lives of the remaining
people, it is affirmed, to administer poison to his sick father, and sent a message
to Arkti, saying: ‘‘The person who opposed you is no more: if you wish
me to come down and submit, cease hostilities, and withdraw your troops
farther off.” This was done ; and Mugaffar-ud-Din came down along with
his brother, and their family, and dependents. They were sent to Hulakii’s
presence ; and he, at first, required restitution of the son for poisoning his
father—what a conscientious champion of justice ! what a chivalrous warrior !
—but, when Mugaffar-ud-Din said that he had done it to save the lives of
thousands, after all his entreaties were of no avail, and when his father was
sick unto death, and would have died in a few days more, Hulakii’s sensitive
conscience was satisfied ; he treated the parricide with much favour, and con-
ferred upon him the territory of Marddin as his vassal. Mugaffar-ud-Din was
living up to the year 695 H.

Sir John Malcolm, in his History of Persia, crowds the capture and invest-
ment of Baghdad, the murder of the "^ Caliph,” together with the ‘‘ conquest,”
as he styles it, ‘of the remainder of Persia, Mesopotamia, and Syria,” all into
one year—656 प. !

4 In the Calcutta Printed Text, and one modern MS. copy, Khwajah—a
man of distinction, etc., is used instead of Khirshed—the sun! In some
copies the word Mihr is used instead of the latter word.

1280 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

standing on the summit of the ramparts of the fortress of
Mayya-farikin, and having drawn the hem of his blessed
garment around that fortress, was saying: “This fortress
is under the protection of Almighty God, and under the
apostolic guardianship of me who am Muhammad.” The
son of Malik Badr-ud-Din-i-Li-li, through the fear in-
spired by this dream, awoke ; and was all the [next] day
in this reflection: “ This is an astonishing dream: what
may be the manner of its interpretation?” The second
night, and the third night, he saw the same vision ; and
the awe and terror in consequence of this overcame him
both internally and externally. On the third day, accom-
panied by his own personal attendants, he mounted, under
the plea of going to the chase, and separated from the
camp of the infidels, and proceeded towards his own
country. When his father [Badr-ud-Din-i-Li-li] became
aware of this, he sent him his commands, saying: “ Me
and my territory thou hast plunged into death and ruin!
Why didst thou commit suchlike conduct and opposition ?
I will not, in any manner, allow thee to come before me.”
The son of Badr-ud-Din-i-Li-li penned a message to
his father, saying: “I cannot war with Muhammad, the
Apostle of God—The Almighty bless him and guard him!
—and such was my condition ;” and he wrote out a state-
ment of the matter, and related all the vision; and he
departed into some other part; and, up to this date, the
condition of him and of his father is not known. God
knows the पप्पी. |

$ Malik Badr-ud-Din, Abi-l-Faga’il-i-Li-li, died at Mausil, at the age of
ninety-six—some say he was over a hundred—in the year 659 H., after ruling
fifty years. Hulakii Khan confirmed his son, Malik Salib-i-Isma’il, in his
father’s territory, but, after a short time, unable any longer to endure the yoke
of the Mughal, he left Mausil, and retired into Misr, preferring to serve there
rather than be aslave to the Mughals. At this time the Mughals had been
overthrown by the Misris on two occasions, and the wife of Malik Salih—
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din’s daughter—gave intimation of her husband’s flight, to
Misr, to the Court of Hulaki.

Malik Salih was paid great attention to by Bandkadar, who had now become
ruler of Misr, and had subjected Damaghk, and who sent him back, with an
escort of 1000 Kurd horsemen, in order to bring away his treasures and
valuables from Maugil to Misr. This having become known to the Mughals,
an order was given to the Mughal forces in the Diyar-i-Bakr to occupy all the

routes by which he could leave Mausil, and the Ni-yin, Shidaghi or
Shidaghi, with 10,000 cavalry, set out to aid in his capture, and Malik Sadr-

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1281

{Here our author brings in a sasidah, several pages in
length, composed in ’Arabic, by Yahya, the son of A’kab,

ud- Din, the Tabrizi, with a somdn of Tajzik levies, was also sent for the same
purpose.

Malik Salih, who had come down to Joshak—a suburb probably—and
given himself up to pleasure, was speedily brought to his senses by the danger;
and the people of Mausil also became terrified. Malik Salih now shut himself
up within the walls, and enlisted all the fighting men he could collect—Kurds,
Turk-miaas, and Shils. The Mughals soon after completely invested Mausil,
but were opposed with valour and obstinacy by the Kurds and Turk-mans, who
made frequent sallies. Fighting went on in this manner for about a month,
when eighty Mughal champions made an attempt to surprise the citadel, but
they were killed toa man, and their heads falling into the camp of the Mughals
announced their fate. Sadr-ud-Din, Tabrizi, commander of the Tajzik soman,
was badly wounded during the investment, and was allowed to return home
invalided. At Ald Tagh, on his way to Tabriz, he reached the presence of
Ffulaki, and acquainted him with the state of affairs at Mausil, and he, with-
out farther delay, despatched a considerable force to the assistance of the
Ni-yin Shidaghi.

When Bandkadar became acquainted with Malik Salih’s danger, he detached
a force from Misr to his aid, under Aghiish, the Arpalii, who, on reaching
Sanjar, wrote a despatch to Malik Salih, announcing his arrival there, and,
fastening it to the wing of a carrier pigeon, despatched the bird to Mausgil. It so
happened that the tired pigeon came and perched ona catapult belonging to the
Mughals ; and the catapult workers caught it, and brought it, with the despatch,
to the Ni-yin, Shidaghii. He had the letter read; and, considering this
incident a sure prognostic of success for the Mughals, set the pigeon free to
continue its journey. He then, without delay, despatched a force of 10,000
men to fall unawares upon the troops of Misr under Aghiish, which they did,
slaughtering the greater number of them. Then, donning the clothes of the
slain Shamis, and endeavouring to make themselves look like Kurds, they
moved back towards Mausil, and gave intimation to their leader, Shidaghi,
saying that they had gained a complete victory, and the following morning,
laden with plunder, in the disguise of Shamis, they would arrive as though
proceeding to Mausil. Next day, when they approached, a number of the
people of Maugil, under the supposition that they were the Shamis from the
ruler of Misr, coming to their deliverance, issued forth to receive them, with
great glee, for, to facilitate matters, Shidaght had withdrawn his other forces to
the opposite direction. The people of Mausil fell into the trap, and were
surrounded, and massacred to a man, but Malik Salih succeeded in entering
the city again. After resisting for a space of six months longer, in Ramazan,
660 H.—Fasib-i says, in 661 H.—the city was taken, and the remainder of the.
inhabitants were put to the sword, not a soul being left alive who fell into
their hands. After some time, about 1000 persons crept out of holes and
corners and assembled there, and for some time were the only inhabitants
of Mausil. Malik Salih fell into the hands of the Mughals, and was con-
ducted to the presence of Hulaki [in Agarbaijan]. The ferocious barbarian,
exasperated at the defeats the Mughals had sustained, directed the Ni-yin,
Ilka, to have him enveloped—not simply desmeared with fat—in fat tails of
the dumbah, or fat-tailed sheep, sewn up in felt, and then exposed to the

1282 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

who was the disciple of the Khalifah, ’Ali, and, subse-
quently, the tutor of Hasan and Husain, his sons. This
kasidah prophecies the irruption of the Turks," the sedition
of the Chingiz Khan in Chin and Tamghéaj, and the fall
of the Muhammadan empires; and also the total annihila-
tion of the Turks. Our author gives a Persian translation
of the poem, and argues, and draws his own conclusions,
from what has happened, up to his own time, that the
period of their total and complete annihilation was close
at hand—it was to happen in 659 H. or in 661 H.—since
he left Hulat and his Mughals in Sham, a few pages back,
where their destruction was to take place. There he
relates that it had even then been reported to have hap-
pened, but “the wish is parent to the thought,” and, like
other prophecies, this one has never come about. As the
kastdah itself, and our author's commentary thereon, which
is very diffuse, are of no historical value whatever, and as
the former is very similar to others omitted at the
beginning of this Section, I see no occasion for burdening
the translation with it.]

Having recorded the prediction respecting the extinction
of the power of the infidel Mughals, I desired that this
TABAKAT-I-NASIRI should not conclude with the sedition
and calamity of the infidels ; and, since one person of that
race, and a Khan among them, has attained unto the
felicity of conversion to the true faith and bliss of Islam, an

burning heat of the summer sun, until, after a week, the tails became putrid,
and swarming with maggots—which was the object in view—which began to
attack the wretched victim, who for one month lingered in this Mughal
torment. It was such devilish doings as these that Kudiiz, ruler of Misr—who
was himself a Turk-man—referred to when he taunted Kaibiika that they could
do nothing like men.

Malik Salih left a son, a babe of two or three years of age, who was taken
back to Mausil, and cut in twain, one half of the child’s corpse being suspended
on one side of the Dijlah, and the other on the Mausil side, and left there to
rot, as a warning of Mughal vengeance. What became of Sultan Jalal-ud-
Din’s daughter, Malik Salih’s wife, has not transpired. ;

6 He means the Mughal I-mak as descendants, along with the Tattar I-miak,
and the other Turks, of the common parent. [See note to page 873.] Our
author was not otherwise so ignorant as to class his master and sovereign, and
his great patron, the Ulugh Khan, who both belonged to the Turk tribes of
Khifchik, of whom more anon, among Turks, or to style Mughals Turks,
save with this distinction.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1283

account of his conversion shall be committed to writing,
and, with it, this book shall, please God, conclude.

ACCOUNT OF THE CONVERSION OF BARKA KHAN, SON
OF TOSHi KHAN, SON OF THE CHINGIZ KHAN, THE
MUGHAL?

Trustworthy persons related after this manner, that the
nativity of Barka Khan,® son of Tiishi, son of the Chingiz
Khan, [who] was [ruler over] the land of Saksin and
Khifchak, and Turkistan, [took place] at the time that his
father, Tishi, captured Khwdarazm,’ and marched forces
into the country of Saksin,' Bulghar, and Suklab.

When this Barka Khan was born of his mother, his
father said: “ This son of mine I have made a Musalman.
Find a Musalman nurse for him, that. his navel-string may
be cut by a Musalman, and that he may imbibe Musalman
milk, for this son of mine will become a Musalman.” In
accordance with this intimation, a nurse severed the navel-
string [of the child] according to Musalman custom; and,
at the breast of a Musalman nurse, he imbibed milk.

7 This portion is wanting’ in some copies of the text, and is imperfect in
others to the extent of several pages.

® The I. O. L. A4S., No. 1952, and the best Paris J/S., invariably give him
the name of Balka—/ is certainly interchangeable with 7, in Turkish names, as
in the case of the Ni-yin, Sali, also written Sari, but I have never seen this
name written save with r, although I have seen others, as in the case of
Balka-Tigin.

The text is particularly defective here. Nearly every copy has: ‘‘ the birth
or nativity —o),— of Barka Khan, etc., took place in [or was in] the land of
Chin, Khifchak, and Turkistin,” which, of course, is sheer nonsense. One
or two copies have «23,—‘‘ kingdom ” or “ sovereignty ”—instead of ws3,—
‘* birth ”’—which makes the passage no better, but gives something of a clue to
2 more correct reading of it. As it stands in the text it is unintelligible, and
therefore, I have, as will be noticed, taken a slight liberty with it, as shown by
the words between brackets, which is conformable with the statements of other
writers, in order to make sense of it.

9 Along with Uktae and Chaghatie.

1 The author of the Tarikh-i-Rashidf says ‘‘Saksin, also written Safkin [in
error, I should suppose], is the name of a territory in Turkistan ;” but, in con-
nexion with the other names mentioned, the former word appears to refer
toa territory in Europe. The two latter are what Europeans call Bulgaria and
Sclavonia.

His father intended Jaji should invade those parts, and commanded him to
do so, but, as already mentioned in note 3, page 1101, para. 4, he did not do so.

1284 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

When the boy reached the period of instruction and edifica-
tion, he [Tiishi] assembled a number of Muhammadan
priests together, and selected one among them, who in-
structed his son in the Kur’an.2 Some among the trust-
worthy relate that Barka studied the Kur’an in the city of
Khujand, with one of the pious ’Ulama of that city. When
he attained unto the period for circumcision, his circum-
cision was carried out. On his attaining unto puberty, as
many Musalmans as were in Tishi’s army were directed
to be attached to Barka’s following ; and, when his father,
Tishi, departed from this world, from having been poisoned
by the Chingiz Khan, and his [Barka’s] brother, Bati,
succeeded his father, Tishi, on the throne, he [Batii] con-
tinued to support Barka in the same exalted position as
before, and confirmed him in his command, fiefs, vassals,
and dependents.

In the year 631 H.,a party of agents of Barka Khan
came, from the land of Khifchak,’ to the presence of the
august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din [I-yal-timish]
——may he rest in peace !—and brought with them presents
and rarities, but, as that august monarch used not to keep
the gates of intercourse and friendship with the Khans of
the Mughals open, in any way, he used not to admit
their envoys to his presence, and was wont to turn
them back in a courteous manner. These envoys from
Barka Khan‘ the Sultan sent to the preserved fortress of
Gwaliyir.. They were a party of Musalmans ; and, every

2? Khwarazm was taken in 618 H., and Jiji died in the third month of
624 H., and, consequently, Barka must have been in his seventh year when
his father died, according to this account, but, from what follows, Barka,
even by our author’s own account, must have been older.

3 Some copies of the text have ‘‘the land of Chin and Khifchak,” which
cannot be correct. At thistime, 89118, Barkae, or Barkah, had not succeeded
to the throne: he did so nineteen years after the above date.

4 The most modern St. Petersburg copy of the text ends here.

$ Here was a Musalman sending his agents to a brother Musalman, but the
one was a Turk of the Mughal I-mak, the other a Turk claiming descent from
the elder branch, namely, from the Ilbari tribe of Khifchak, which had been
ousted from, and compelled to leave, their native country by the Mughals
about twelve years before. I-yal-timigh, however, had been sold by his
own brothers, and some of the tribe had been before displaced: still we
here see the natural hatred existing between Tattar Turk and Mughal Turk,
which even Islamism could not quench, and never has quenched, I believe:
but, on the other hand, I-yal-timish behaved no better to the envoy of Sultan

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1285

Friday, they used to be present in the Fam:' Masjid of
Gwaliyiir, and used to repeat their prayers behind the
iVaww4b* of the writer of this TABAKAT, Minhaj-i-Saraj,
until, in the reign of the Sultan, Raziyyat—The Almighty’s
mercy be upon her!—the author of this book, after a
period of six years, returned to the illustrious capital, Dihlt,
from Gwiliyir.’ In the end, this sovereign was put in
seclusion; and the agents of Barka Khan likewise were
ordered to be removed from Gwaliyir to Kinnauj, and
they were restricted to the limits of that city ; and there
likewise they died [in captivity].

When Barka Khan attained unto greatness, he came
from the land of Khifchak for the purpose of making a
pilgrimage to the surviving illustrious men and 'Ulama of
Islam, and arrived at the city of Bukhara. He performed
his pilgrimages, and went back again [into Khifchak], and
despatched confidential persons to the Capital of the
Khilafat. A number of trustworthy persons have related
on this wise, that, on two occasions or more, Barka Khan
was honoured with dresses of honour from the Khalifah’s
Court, even during the lifetime of his brother, Bati Khan.
The whole of his army,’ about 30.000 horse, were all
Musalmans, and the orthodox ceremonies [of the Sunni
sect] were established. Trustworthy persons have also
related that, throughout his whole army, it is the eti-
quette for every horseman to have a prayer-carpet with
him, so that, when the time for prayer arrives, they may
occupy themselves in their devotions. Not a person in
his whole army takes any intoxicating drink whatever;
and great ’Ulama, consisting of commentators, tradi-
tionists, theological jurists, and disputants, are in his
society. He has a great number of religious books, and
most of his receptions and debates are with ` तामा. In
his place of audience debates on moral science and eccle-

Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, who was a Turk like himself [but not
descended from the ‘‘Gusses’’], for his envoy was poisoned.
_ © Substitutes, deputies—the plural of q.b—those who officiated for our
author as Imams during his absence.

7 This was in the latter part of 635 H. These unfortunate men had then
been under detention four years. See pages 643-44-

४ His own contingent troops.

1286 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

siastical law constantly take place ; and, in his faith, as a
Musalman, he is exceedingly sound and orthodox.*®

9 Having become a Musalman he was naturally inclined towards the people
of that faith ; and, as the representative of his brother, Batii, the head of the
family of the Chingiz Khan, who was instrumental to Mangii’s succession to
the Ka’an-ship, Barka, under instructions from Batii, had been actively en-
gaged in establishing him therein, as already related. Barka therefore was
naturally inclined to assume a superiority over Hulaki, his cousin, who was the
servant of Mangi, his brother; for, since Batii’s death, Barka had himself been
regarded as the head of the family; and now that so many Musalman sove-
reigns had been sacrificed, and their dominions annexed, but, more particularly,
since the cruel treatment and martyrdom of the innocent head of the Muham-
madan religion, all ties between them were broken ; and Barka vowed vengeance
against Hulakii in consequence.

Hulakii died at No-shahr of Agarbiaijan, on the night of Sunday—our
Saturday night—the r9th of Rabf-ul-Akhir, 663 H., aged forty-eight, after
ruling over I-rin-Zamin nine years and three months. He was buried on
the mountain of Shahi, which is opposite the village of Khwarkan, according
to the Fanakati and Raghid-ud-Din, but the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir says Shahin-
talah, the mountain north of Tabriz,the same place, probably, under a different
name.

Rashid-ud-Din, who was Wazir to Hulakii’s great grandson, as a matter of
course is politic enough to view everything from the Hulakii point of view,
and puts all the fault upon Barkaé. He, however, acknowledges that Barka
Khan was considered the Aka, or head of the family, but, that Hulakii had
determined not to endure Barka’s threats, whereas it was Barka who promptly
followed his threats with acts. One of the chief causes of complaint on
Barka’s part was, that Hulakii had made no distinction whatever between
friend and foe; and had put the innocent Khalifah to death, without con-
sulting himself in any way, whom, by right of his position, it was necessary
Hulakii should have referred to, especially as he was a Musalman.

At the time Hulakii retired from Halab, on the news of his brother’s death
reaching him, Balgha or Balghin, also written Balka and Balkan with k, son
of Shaiban, son of प्प, who was one of the Shah-zadahs sent to serve under
Hulaki, died suddenly at an entertainment. Soon after, another Shah-zadah,
(पठा Aghbil, another kinsman of Barkaé Khan’s, was accused of having caused
Balgha’s death by sorcery, and he was put to death on the 17th Safar, 658 H.
(The Fanakati says he was sent to Barkd, as head of the family, to be dealt
with, under the escort of the Nii-yin, Siinjak, and Alff says Barka sent him
back again, but, in such case, how could Barka make the execution of this
Shih-zadah a pretext for making war on Hulakii?] The Sadr, Saichi, was
also executed by Hulakii’s order, because he was said to have written a charm
for Titar. Soon after these events, Koli, another Shah-zddah of Jiji’s house,
serving with the Mughal forces under Hulaki, also died, upon which, his
retinue, and dependents, made their escape from Hulakii’s camp, and fled by
way of the sea of Gildan [the Caspian], and the Dar-Band, and made for the
Dasht-i-Kibchak, or Khifchak, the territory of Barka Khan.

When the death of his three kinsmen became known to Barka, he despatched
a message to Hulakii breathing vengeance; and sent Bikie, a near kinsman
of the deceased Tiitar, at the head of 30,000 horse, to extort restitution ; and

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1287

ANECDOTE RESPECTING BARKA KHAN’S ZEAL IN THE
MUSALMAN FAITH.

In the year 657 H., a reverend and holy Sayyid of
Samrkand came to the illustrious capital, the city of

he, having passed the Dar-Band, took up a position in sight of Shirwan.
Hulaki, who, at this time, was encamped near the sources of the river Aras,
on his way towards the Koh-i-Kaf, or Kakasus, on this despatched the Ni-yin,
Shiramiin, and other Amfrs, to oppose Bikie; and, in Zf-Hijjah, 660 म.
they reached Shamakhi. Barka’s army fell upon Shiramiin and his troops,
and defeated them with great slaughter. Subsequently, at the end of the
same month, the Ni-yins, Abatae and Shimaghii, with another force, on the
part of Hulakii, renewed the fighting, and surprised the troops of Barka, which
had retired towards Shaburain in Shirwan, and, within a league of that place,
defeated them, in their turn, with great slaughter, at the end of Zi-Hijjah, of
the same year ; and एदल, with the remainder, fled.

On the 6th of Muharram of the next year, 661 H., Huliki put his troops in
motion for the purpose of pursuing them, and invading Bark4’s territory, and
advanced from the frontier of Shamakhi. On Friday, the 23rd of Muharram,
Hulakii encountered the forces of Barka at the Bab-ul-Abwab, captured the
Dar-Band, and defeat again befell them. A large force under Abaka Khan,
Hulikii’s son, was subsequently despatched in pursuit of Barka’s troops.
Abaka Khan crossed the river Tarak [vul. Terek], entered the Dasht-
i-Kibchak, and reached their camp, which his troops found abandoned.
Three days after, on the Ist of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, when totally off their
ˆ guard—Guzidah says Hulakii’s forces behaved most infamously in Barka’s
territory—Barka, in person, attacked Hulaki’s forces unawares, and drove
them back with great loss. The river Tarak was frozen over at the time,
and it gave way under the fugitives, the greater number of whom perished.
Abaka Khan, with the remnant, succeeded in reaching Shaburan. Barki’s
forces then retired within their own frontier. Hulaki, on the r1th of Jamadi-
ul-Akhir, reached Tabriz, filled with rage and despondency at the upshot of
affairs. He ordered great preparations to be made for a renewal of the war,
in order, as soon as his preparations should be complete, to wipe out the
disgrace, but death prevented him.

Other operations subsequently took place after Hulakii’s death, but can
have no place in this work. For the date of Barka’s succession, however, see
note $, page 1291.

It may not be amiss to mention here why Hulakii is known as the Il-Khan,
and his dynasty as the Il-Khani. Hulakii was subject to his brother Mangi,
and the headings of all yar/igds and other documents bore the name and title
of Mang Ka’an. Hulakii had nothing whatever to do with the revenues of the
countries west of the Amiijiah, which department pertained to Arghiin Aka—
Guzidah says his brother was Diwan of the revenue—and consequently Hulaki
became renowned by the name of the Il-Khan, i] [the plural form when used is
ilat] signifying, in Turki, people, a society, assemblage, an array, race, tribe,
etc. and Khan, a chief, but, among the Mughals, Khan is applied to a
sovereign, as our author also mentions at page 862.

The Amir, Arghiin Aka, who for a period of thirty years had held the 2.
ministration of the revenue affairs of I-ran, died, in his camp, in the plain of
Radakan of Tis, in 673 H.

1288 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Dihli, to trade. In the audience hall of the sovereign,
the asylum of Islam and Sultan of the seven climes '—
May God long preserve his rule and sovereignty !—he
received kindness and encouragement; and was distin-
guished by the reverence, and princely benefits of the
Sultan. The grandees of this illustrious capital, every one
of whom is a bright constellation in the firmament of
Islam, and light-diffusing star in the sphere of the Faith,
all deemed it right likewise to confer favours and benefits
upon that illustrious Sayyid, who was [named] Ashraf-
ud-Din, the son of the Sayyid, Jalal-ud-Din, the ऽप, and
unto whom appertains the service of the khankah [ monas-
tery] of Nir-ud-Din-i-A’ma [the Blind]|—on whom be the
Almighty’s mercy !—in the city of Samrkand. From this
eminent Sayyid two statements were heard [by the author]
respecting the firmness of Barka Khan in the Muham-
madan faith, May God protect him and increase his
blessings |

FIRST STATEMENT.

That eminent Sayyid thus related, that one of the
Christians? of Samrkand attained unto the felicity of
Islam ; and the Musalmans of Samrkand, who are staunch
in their faith, paid him great honour and reverence, and
conferred great benefits upon him. Unexpectedly, one
of the haughty Mughal infidels of Chin, who possessed
power and influence, and the inclinations of which ac-
cursed one were towards the Christian faith, arrived at
Samrkand. The Christians of that city repaired to that
Mughal, and complained, saying: “ The Musalmans are
enjoining our children to turn away from the Christian
faith and serving "Isi—on whom be peace !—and calling
upon them to follow the religion of Mustafa [the Chosen
one—Muhammad]—on whom be peace !*—and, in case

1 The Kuran copying puppet, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, his sovereign
and patron, to whom this work is dedicated.

2 Tarsayan is used here again.

3 All the later copies of our author’s work copied in India are more unctuous
and diffuse in their glorification of the Mubammadan faith, and in their praises
of their Prophet, than copies made in other parts of Islam, and they despatch
all and everybody else ‘‘to hell’? much oftener.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1289

that gate becomes unclosed, the whole of our dependents
will turn away from the Christian faith. By [thy] power
and authority devise a settlement of our case.‘

That Mughal commanded that the youth, who had
turned Musalman, should be produced; and they tried
with blandishment and kindness, and money and wealth, in
order to induce that sincere newly-converted Musalman to
recant, but he did not recant ;* and that garment of fresh-
mess—the Musalman faith—he did not put off from his
heart and spirit. That Mughal ruler then turned over a leaf
in his temper, and began to speak of severe punishment ; °
and every punishment, which it was in his power to inflict,
or his severity to devise, he inflicted upon that youth, who,
from his vast zeal for the faith of Islam, did not recant,
and did not, in any way, cast away from his hand the
sharbat of religion through the blow of infidel perverse-
ness. As the youth continued firm to the true faith, and
paid no regard to the promises and threats of that de-
praved set, the accursed Mughal directed so that they
brought that youth to public punishment; and he de-
parted from the world in the felicity of religion—God
reward him and requite him!—and the Musalman com-
munity in Samrkand were overcome with despondency
and consternation in consequence.’

Ashraf-ud-Din related on this wise: “A petition was
got up, and was attested with the testimony of the chief
-men and credible persons of the Musalm§n religion dwell-
ing at Samrkand, and we proceeded with that ‘petition to
the camp of Barka Khan, and represented [to him] an
account of the proceedings and disposition of the Chris-
tians of that city. Zeal for the Muhammadan religion
was manifested in the mind of that monarch of exemplary
faith, and the defence of the truth became predominant
in his disposition. After some days, he showed honour
and reverence to this Sayyid, appointed a body of Turks

4 With this sentence the best St. Petersburg copy of the text ends.

$ The following three pages and a half are not contained in the Haileybury,
the Bodleian, or the Ro. As. Soc. copies of the text. The two latter begin
and end with precisely the same words.

५ In one good copy of the text—‘ punishment with the sword.’

7 The second British Museum copy is defective of the remainder of the text
from this place.

4 N

1290 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

~

and confidential persons * among the chief Musalmans, and
commanded that they should slaughter the Christian sect
who had committed that dire oppression, and despatch
them to hell.

“ Having obtained that mandate, it was preserved until
that wretched sect assembled together in the £a/zsa@ [church];
and they seized them all together, and despatched the whole
of them to hell, and reduced the church again to bricks.”

This vengeance was [obtained | through the auspiciousness
of that monarch’ towards the faith of Muhammad—the bless-
ing and peace of Almighty God be upon him, and favourably
regard among those of the true faith the Hanafi sect !

SECOND STATEMENT.

This same Sayyid, Ashraf-ud-Din, related, that, when
Batu Khan departed from this world, a son survived him,
Surtak’ [by name]. He determined to proceed to the

9 The Calcutta Printed Text has ylsd.—rebels, seditious persons—for
widens here !

9 Barka Khan ruled over the Daght-i-Kibchak, and its dependencies farther
west, according to the Pro-Mughal authors, who wrote after our author ; and,
according to them, his authority did nat extend to Samrkand ; for the territories
immediately east of the Jibiin or Amiiiah pertained to the descendants of
Chaghatae Khan. See note 1, page 1292.

Rubruquis mentions a city on the Atil or Walga, which he reached on his
return homewards, under the name of Samarkant, which, he says, is encom-
passed like an isle with the river, when it overflows, that the Tartars [Mughals]
were eight years besieging it before they could take it, and that it was inhabited
by Alans and Mubammadans. Whether such a city or town ever existed,
under that name, is doubtful, but some have supposed it to be the city after-
wards called Haji-Tarkhan, Europeanized Astrakhan. ‘The founder of that
place has been mentioned however elsewhere.

1 His name is incorrectly given, in the remaining copies of the text available,
as Surtaf—s,.—a dot having been omitted from the last letter. The
Calcutta Text makes it Sumaf—b,. Not only did Surtak survive him, but
also Ulighchi, another son, mentioned in a subsequent note.

On his way back from Mangu Ka’an’s court, Rubruquis and his party were
two months and ten days travelling from the wrdz at Kara-Kuram to 23105
urdit, in which space they found neither town, nor habitation, except one poor
village [of felt tents probably], where they could not get even bread, and from
time to time graves of the inhabitants. After he had travelled twenty days
from Mangii’s wrd#, he heard that the king of Armenia had passed by, and at
the end of August he inet with Surtak and his family, his flocks, and herds,
going to the presence of Mangii Ka’An—the very journey referred to by our
author above. Rubruquis paid his respects to that Prince, who sent him two
habits—dresses of honour—one for himself, and another for King Louis. The
friar reached [the late] Batii’s urd, at Sarde, on the 16th September, 1254.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 129!

presence of Mangi Khan, from the country of Khifchak
and Saksin, that, through the means of Mangia Khan, hé
might succeed to his father, Bati’s, position. On reaching
the presence of Mangii Khan in the country of Tamghaj,
he [after receiving him] sent him back with honour. As
Surtak shunned coming to the presence of his uncle, Barka
Khan, and altered his route, and did not come near his uncle,
Barka Khan despatched persons unto him, saying: “I am
unto thee in the place of a father: why dost thou pass by
like a stranger, and not come near me?” When the per-
sons despatched delivered the message of Barka Khan,
Surtak, the accursed, gave answer, saying: “Thou art a
Musalman, and I follow the Christian faith; to look upon
the face of a Musalman is unlucky ”—The Almighty’s curse
be upon the whole of them [the Christians] !?

When this unworthy remark reached that sovereign of
Musalmans, Barka Khan, he entered into his khargah*
alone, fixed a rope round his own neck, firmly secured the
door of the khargah with a chain, and stood up; and with
the most entire humility, and most perfect submission, he
began to weep and groan, and say: “O God! if the
Muhammadan faith‘ and the laws of Islam are true, do
me justice against Surtak.” For the space of three nights
and days, after having performed his religious duties, he
continued, in this manner, to groan and lament, and to
supplicate, until, on the fourth day, when Surtak, the
accursed, arrived at that place of encampment,’ the hour
of his death came. The Most High God afflicted him
with bowel complaint ; and he went to hell.’

3 All are accursed who are not of his own faith: the same failing exists
everywhere, no matter what the faith may be, but we might hope for some-
thing better from Christians, in these, so-called, ‘‘ enlightened” days.

Rubruquis, who knew Surtak, did not think much of his Christianity.

3 A large round tent constructed of samads or felts, such as are used by the
Turkish nomads.

If Barka was alone, it is strange that the very worthy Sayyid knew what he
did, or what he said. This shutting himself up is more after the fashion of
his ancestor, the Chingiz Khan, when he cried out to Tingri, than of a Musal-
man. See page 954.

५ Here the imperfect copies, previously referred to, begin again.

$ The place where death overtook him, probably, as just above we are told
that Surtak would not come near Barka.

५ On the death of Batt Khan, his eldest son, Surtak, was in the camp of

4 N 2

1292 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

Some [persons] related on this wise, that, on Mangi
Khan perceiving signs of sedition upon the brow of Surtak,
he despatched confidential persons, secretly, so that they ad-
ministered poison to the accursed Surtak, and he departed
to hell.

Barka Khan took the wife [wives ?] of Bati Khan to
wife ; 7 and there were fifteen sons and grandsons of the
generation of Tiishi Khan,* all of whom departed to hell.
The possessions of the whole of them passed under the
sway of Barka Khan; and, through the auspiciousness
[attendant on his embracing] the Muhammadan faith, the
whole of the territory of Khifchak, Saksin,? Bulghar,
Saklab, and Riis, as far as the north-east [boundary] of
Rim, and Jund, and Khwarazm, came into his possession.
In the year 658 H., which is that of the conclusion of this
TABAKAT, parties of persons coming from the territory of
Khurasan state that Mangii Khan has departed to hell,

and that, in all the cities of the east and west, and in the

countries of ’Ajam, Mawara-un-Nahr, and Kburasan, the
Khutbah is read for Barka Khan ;' and that they have

Mangi Ka’an. He was held in great estimation by the latter, who despatched
him to his father’s y#rat, to succeed to the sovereignty over his dominions.
He never reached it, however, but died on the road in 651 H. Ulaghchi,
another son, succeeded to the sovereignty, but he too died very soon after, in
the same year. Some writers do not enter the names of these two brothers
in the list of sovereigns of the house of Jijf, and put Barka, Barkah, or.
Barkae, which is written in as many different ways, immediately after Batu, his
brother. Barka ascended the throne in 652 H. Sir John Malcolm, in his
History of Persia, among many other grave errors, says [p. 425, vol. I.] that
९५ Barkah”’ was a descendant of ^" Chaghtae!”

7 A custom among the Mughals.

४ The I. O. L. AZS., No. 1952, the best Paris A/S., the Ro. As. Soc. MS.,
and the Bodleian 4/S., all have any name but the correct one here, namely,
pl J-—ylep— lets and ७4 The Printed Calcutta Text follows the frst
named copy, but there ought not to have been any doubt as to who is
undoubtedly referred to.

9 For Saksin and Ris the Calcutta Text has ‘‘ Safin” and «^ Wurs.”

1 Our author appears to have been well informed upon most matters which
happened about his own time especially, and he may be correct here too; and,
no doubt, the above is what he heard. The Pro-Mughal authors, who began
to write nearly a century after, under the patronage of the sovereigns of the
houses of Hulaki and of Chaghatde, and whose officials they were, out of
policy, refrained from setting down anything likely to be unpalatable to their
masters, as is amply proved by their writings. It is evident too that Batu
exercised authority in Khurdsin long before this time; for he appointed a
governor to Hirat in 638 H., and again in 641 H., as already mentioned, in

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1293

assigned to that Sultan the title of Jamal-ud-Din, Ibrahim ;?
but God knows the reality.

In this same year, likewise, one of the great men among
the Arabs, whom they style the Imam, Shams-ud-Din, the
Maghrabi, has been despatched from the presence of his
Lord; on a mission to the presence of the Asylum of the
Universe, the Sultan of Sultans, NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA
uD-DIn, MAHMOUD SHAH—God perpetuate his sove-
reignty !—and, having dedicated services, which will be
worthy of this Court, has caused himself to be strung upon
the thread of the servants of this sovereign, the Asylum
of the World, which felicity is, to him, the most excellent
of all happiness. |

May the Most High God prolong the happiness and
felicity of the Monarch of the Universe to the extreme
limit of possibility, and may He keep it uninterrupted
and increasing; and grant that this TABAKAT may be
deemed worthy of acceptance in the Sublime Audience-
Hall, and that this author, in the garment of prayer, may,
thereon, pronounce its conclusion * with this verse :—

‘* Be Khigr, with the bowl of immortality, the Shah’s cup-bearer!
Be the portico of his gate like unto the nine-vaulted sphere !

May it continue in the world as long as the world continues—
The name of the TABAKAT of MAHMUD SHAH-I-NASIR-UD-DiN.”

note §, page 1126. Itis therefore clear, from these facts, that, in the interreg-
num which occurred on the death of Mangiti Ka’an, the parts above referred
to must have come under the rule of Barka, temporarily, or, as head of the
family, until the time when, after the submission of Artuk-Buka, also called
Irtuk- Bika, and death of Alghi, Kubilae became established in the Ka’an-
ship, and, at which time, he assigned all I-ran-Zamin, as far east as the
Amiiah, to Hulakii

2 No other writer mentions this title, but it is doubtless correct, for it was
usual with the subsequent Mughal sovereigns, who became converts to Islim,
to take a Musalmdn name and title, as in the case of Nikiidar Aghil, Hulakii’s
son, who was styled Sultin Abmad : in fact, it is incumbent on a convert to
take 9 Musalman name.

* Sahib: some have Khwajah. The four A/SS. before mentioned, and the
Printed Text, leave out the word Lord, and thus make the Imam come from
the presence of himself! Who his Lord was, does not appear.

This was just sixty-seven years before the Maghrabi, Ibn-i-Batiitah, set out
on his travels.

+ The I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and Printed Text are defective here again :
even the verse is imperfect.

1294 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

CONCLUSION.

As much as was possible to, and lay in the power of,
and came within the circle of the hearing of, and was
related to, this votary, has been written and recorded.
Should the observation of the ruler of the people of Islam
—God perpetuate his sovereignty !—or of the Khakan-i-
Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam—may his prosperity en-
dure !—or of the Maliks, or Nobles, or Grandees, or Sadrs,
or Pillars of the State, or Eyes of the Faith, during the
lifetime of the author, or subsequent to his decease, notice,
in this TABAKAT, an error, mistake, deficiency, or re-
dundance, may they veil it with the skirt of the robe of
kindness and forgiveness, which will be the extreme of
favour, and perfection of benevolence.

Praise be unto Thee, O God, the all-sufficient helper in
every respect! By Thy mercy, 0 Thou Most Merciful of
the Merciful, have pity upon us! May God bless the best
of His creation—Muhammad, the chief of the prophets,
the noblest of the dwellers in earth and in heaven, and all
the prophets and divine messengers, and their descendants,
every one of them !

The frailest of the servants of the Divine, MINHAJ-I-
SARAJ, the Jirjani, who is the author of this TABAKAT—
Almighty God protect him !—thus states, that, when this
History was submitted by him to the SULTAN, NASIR-
uD-DIN, MAHMOD SHAH—God prolong his reign !—he
ordained him a royal dress of honour, and the washak’
{marten] pelisse [trimmed] with fine ermine, which was on
his own blessed shoulders. He likewise bestowed upon
the author an allowance of 10,000 jita/s yearly, and the
grant of a village;* and, when a transcription of this
History was transmitted to the KHAKAN-I-MU’AZZAM

$ Not one of the four now remaining copies of the text has this word correct.
The Printed Text too is as defective and incorrect here as elsewhere. The
washak is described as an animal something similar to the fox, of the skins
of which they make Zostins or pelisses ; and it is said that whoever wears one
will not be troubled with hemorrhoids.

५ The revenue arising from the village, without prejudice to the propnetary
rights of the landholders.

IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDELS INTO ISLAM. 1295

ULUGH KHAN-I-A’ZAM—may his prosperity endure !—
he sent [to the author] 20,000 jita/s in ready money,’ a
Mahi Subahi,® a bundle of ermine, and another of fox
[skin]. This strophe, out of gratitude for those gifts, was
pronounced [by the author] and inscribed upon the back of
the Khan’s copy. Strophe :—

‘* To the Shahr-yar of the universe, Ulugh Khan, he
Who is Khan of the Ilbari, and Shah of the Yamak.?

Whosoever found acceptance in his presence

Never more turned face towards the heavens.

Before him [indeed] who is Hatim.i-Ta-i?

Near unto him what is Yabya-i-Barmak ? }

The dust from the tablet of the heart of Minhaj—

The cares of the world—he with kindness wiped away.
¢ Listen to this assertion from me, all people,

By the way of certainty, not by the road of doubt. —

Ninety and nine shares of [his] generosity belong to me :

Of it, all others have but one out of a hundred.

Every prayer I may offer up from the heart for him,

The angels, with sincerity, say, Amin! thereto.”

The book of MINHAJ-I-SARAJ,* the JORJANI, on the sth

7 The Printed Text has 59«.—established, fixed, etc., while the AZSS.
copies have 5yJe.—counted, numbered, etc., and ready-money, which must
have been sufficiently apparent from the context.

Our author was much more fortunate than some authors of the present day,
who, in many cases, find their writings transferred to another man’s book,
who appropriates your labours as his own work, trades upon the fruit of
‘your brains, gets honours for them, and probably abuses the work he
pirates.

® Certain emblems of rank and honours conferred upon and carried before
princes and great men, denoted by the figure of a fish—md/i—and other
insignia, also styled Mahi-Maratib, or something of a similar kind.

9 See page 1097. And yet this I]bari Turk is one of many other Turks
whom compilers of Indian History turn into ‘‘ Afghans,” and ^ Patins,”
which words are synonymous. See pages 599 and 796.

1 The paragons of Oriental liberality and generosity. A good anecdote of
Yahya-i-Barmak is contained in Lane’s (^ Arabian Nights,” Vol. 2.

2 The I. 0. L. MS., No. 1982, Ro. As. Soc., and Bodleian A/SS., all
have di here, while the Printed Text omits it, an izafat being understood. Here
is an illustration, and a very good one, taken in connexion with the Khalifah’s
words, announcing the death of our author’s father, at page 244, as well as in
many other places herein, which demolishes the theory put forth by the late
Mr. W. H. Blochmann, M.A., in ^ Zhe Fournal of the Bengal Asiatic Society”
for 1876, page 325, that ‘‘ Minhaj i Siraj does not mean in prose ‘ Minh&j the
son of Sir&j,’ but ° Minhéj who writes under the name of Siraj’;” that ‘‘ hss
name is not Minhaj ud Din, the son of Siraj ud Din,” and that ‘‘ the izd/at is
never used in prose in place of Arabic Jn,” while, at the same time, the

५

1296 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, in the year 658 प्र. was
brought to its

CONCLUSION.

Calcutta Printed Text has actually ‘‘ Minaj-ud-Din, i Saraj-ud-Din,” on its
title-page ! Our author’s own words, too, in the body of the work, com-
pletely disprove these rash statements. See the Memoir of the author, page
xix, and APPENDIX, page xviii.

3 This would be about the 17th February, 12604.D. At page 865, he says
he finished it in Shawwal—the tenth month—while, at page 799, he :itates that
he completed it in Rajab—the seventh month !

APPENDIX A.

On the year of the occupation of Dihli by Malik, afterwards
Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, [-bak, and the inscription on the
minarah of ‰ ४८८ Sahib, page 621

Mr. H. BLOCHMANN, M.A., in Part III., of his “ Contri-
butions to the History and Geography of Bengal,” in the
Bengal Asiatic Fournal for 1875, criticises the date given
by our author, and by me, for the occupation of Dihli by
Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, at page 515, and would, instead, fix
upon the year 587 H. for that event. He says:—‘Mr. E
Thomas fixes it at 587 H. as consistent with the best
authorities.” But who are these best authorities? Two
pages farther on, Mr. Blochmann states that “the Tabaqat
is the only authority we possess for this period.”

Now I will just give a specimen of Mr. Thomas’ “ best
authorities.” At page 11 of his “ PATHAN KINGS OF
DEHLI,” he says: “In 587, in a more extended expedition
into Hindustan, Muhammad Ghori was totally routed on
the memorable field of Thaneswar * * * After a year's
repose * * * on the self-same battle ground, he again
encountered his former adversary * * * This time fortune
favoured the Ghories.* * * By this single victory the
Muhammadans may be said to have become the virtual
masters of Hindustan,” &c., &c.

I will take it for granted that a year after 587 means
588 H., but turn to the foot-note at page 23 of the same
work. There Mr. Thomas, forgetting, apparently, what he
wrote a few pages before, says :—“ As regards the histori-
cal evidence to the date 587 A. H. for the capture of Dehli
by the Muslims, it is complete and consistent with the best
authorities!”

Mr. Thomas adds “and Minhaj-zs- Siraj repeats in
various forms, while treating of the life of Aibeg, the
confirmation of the same date.” In this I cannot agree
with him. ˆ Let us turn to page irs of the Calcutta Printed
Text, the foot-note, and also to this Translation, page 515,
in both of which we find (leaving out the first defeat by the

a

ii APPENDIX.

Hindis, but again referring to Kutb-ud-Din’s being taken
captive], he “took possession of that place—Mirath—in
587 H. [see note 5, page 515 of this Translation]. From
Mirath likewise he issued forth in the year 588 H., and
captured Dihli.”

These are the actual words in the different A7SS. col-
lated. It is not actually said that Dihli was taken in
588 H., merely that Kutb-ud- Din, in 588 H., marched from
Mirath, and it must have been towards ¢he close of that
year, as will be shown farther on, for, according to the Taj-
ul-Ma’asir [see page v of this] he had to start to relieve
Hansi in the #zztk month of that year, and only took
Mirath after that. It is evident, therefore, that Minhaj-ud-
Din did not intend it to be understood that Dihli was
taken and made the seat of government in 588 H., unless
he stultifies himself by upsetting his previous statements at
pages 248, 378, 456, 457, and 464, which see.

I will now leave the “best authorities” and go to facts.

Minhaj-ud-Din states [pages 456—477] that troubles
arose in Khwarazm in consequence of the outbreak of Sultan
Shah, the Khwarazmi, in 587 H.; that, subsequently [but
in the same year], Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-
Sam, advanced into India, took Tabarhindah ; left a garmi-
son there with orders to hold out for szx months, and was
preparing to retire [in consequence of the hot season, it
being the third or fourth month, at latest, of 587 H.—Appril
or May, 1191 A.D.]; was defeated by Rae Pithora ; and had
to retire, leaying the garrison still there. In the cold season
of that year—five or six months after—instead of being
able to return as he intended, he was under the necessity
of preparing to attend his brother, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din,
Muhammad-i-Sam, along with other dependent Princes and
their troops, against Sultan Shah, the Khwarazmi Prince,
who threatened Ghiyds-ud-Din, Muhammad’s dominions
in Khuradsan. Besides, Mu’izz-ud-Din had been badly
wounded in the first battle, and it must have taken him
some time to recover. This campaign, Minhaj-ud-Din states,
at pages 248 and 378, took place in 588 H., and occupied
siz months, Kutb-ud-Din accompanied his master, and
was taken captive by the Khwarazmis, but, after a battle,
and defeat of the enemy, he was re-captured. “ This vic-
tory,” says Minhaj-ud-Din, “was achieved in the year
588 H.” :

I also take it for granted that Mr. Blochmann will allow
that this capture of Kutb-ud-Din must have taken place
before he captured Dihli. But what will totally overtum
any theories on this matter, unless people व not be con-

APPENDIX. iii

vinced, is the fact that Minhaj-ud-Din’s relative, K4zi,
Muhammad, the Tilaki [Mr. Dowson’s “Kazi Tulak” |,
was left with a body of troops to hold Tabarhindah for the
space of szx months [that is to the next cold season—the
ninth or tenth month of 587 H.—September or October,
1197 A.D.]. Why did he do this, it may be asked ? and the
answer is plain enough: he could not remain in India any
longer with safety. The hot season was close at hand, and
he would have been unable to return if he stayed much
longer, for, besides the heat, the six mighty rivers in his rear
would have all been unfordable, and would have to be
crossed by boats, even if boats were procurable, a dan-
gerous matter with regard to most of those rivers at that
season, witness the strong Railway Bridges washed away
in these days. The Sultan, having been defeated -imme-
diately after he placed the Kazi in Tabarhindah, and
having subsequently to accompany his brother towards
Marw, where they were occupied six months, could not
return as he intended, and the K4zi, having held out over
thirteen months [see Translation, page 464], the Sultan still
not having come, had to give it up to the Hindis.

Now if we calculate, say, fourteen of fifteen months from
the first defeat, for the Sultan’s return [i. €, from the setting
in of the hot season—the 22202 month of 587 H.], we shall
come to the /ast month of 588 H.; and, in the same way, if we
calculate six months of 588 H. for the operations in Khurasan,
we must allow some little time for the Sultan to reach
Ghaznin, and he would then even require a month or two
to prepare fora campaign in India; and besides, even tf he
were ready before, he could not move towards India during the
height of the 4ot season, There were the same six mighty
rivers to be crossed, and all unfordable at that period ; and,
all these things being thought of, it was utterly impossible for .
Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, to have entered
India, at the earliest, before the middle of September or
October—the end of the ninth or tenth month of 588 H.,
previous to which period no man in his senses, would have
attempted to march from Ghaznin, to cross the six rivers,
and advance into India.

Then followed the battle with Rae Pithora, Kutb-ud-
Din is left in charge at Kuhram, and the Sultan prepared
to return home again.

These being the facts, how is it possible, on Mr. Thomas’s
“best authorities,” that Kutb-ud-Din could have occupied
Dihli in 587 H. ?

I am glad also to find that General Cunningham, on his
visit to Dihli in 1862, considered that 589 H. and not 587

a2

iv APPENDIX.

H. was the correct date on the Mindrah—xot of “ Qutbuddin
Aibeg,” about which so many reams of paper have been
written, but of a wholly different KUTB. I refer to the date
on this A/indrah about which “doctors disagree,” and with
regard to which Mr. Thomas would fix on 587 H. for the
occupation of Dihli, and so all other dates must be made
to suit it, and Mr. Blochmann too prefers 587 H. I sup-
pose, however, that all the ‘best authorities” never con-
sidered how tt could be possible for Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din to
be defeated by Rae Pithora just before the hot season of
587 H., totake “a year’s repose” [Thomas], again enter
India, be occupied some time even then against Rae Pithora
before finally overthrowing him [according to the Taj-ul-
Ma'asir also], leave Kutb-ud-Din at Mirath, retire again
from India, for Kutb-ud-Din, subsequent to 21] this, to
occupy Dihli, build a great Mosque, upon which [notwith-
standing the address of the President of the Archzological
Section at the Oriental Congress of 1874] Musalm4n artisans
brought from different parts of Asia were employed, and
all these events to have happened in the one year of 587 H:!
The idea is simply preposterous.

It occurs to me, on considering this subject further, that
the inscription on the fourth circlet of the lower story of the
Minarah as givenin Thomas [PATHAN KINGs, page 21-22]
refers not to Mu’izz-ud- Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, if the
name given is correct, but to his elder brother. It will
be found at pages 368 and 370 of this Translation, and in
the corresponding places in the original, that the elder
brother and suzerain of Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of
Sam, was first called Muhammad and his title was Shams-
ud-Din, and that the younger brother was also called Muham-
mad, and his title was Shihab-ud-Din. The first brother
_after he came to the throne, assumed the titles of “ Ghiyas-
ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Muhammad, son of [Baha-ud-Din]
Sam, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin,” and after the successes
in Khurasan, in 588 H., the younger brother, Muhammad,
who, up to that time, bore the title of Shihab-ud-Din,
received the title of Mu’izz-ud-Din, so that, when defeated
by Rae Pithora, he bore the title of Shihab-ud-Din, but
afterwards, on his return the second time, Mu’izz-ud-Din.
This may account for the subsequent Indian Muhammadan
writers calling him Shihab and Mu’izz indiscriminately.

At the period in question, when these inscriptions are
said to have been recorded [I fancy they were recorded
subsequently. See note 6, page 621, of this Translation],
the elder brother and suzerainx was still living, and lived for
ten years after + and, I imagine, it will be allowed, that the

APPENDIX. ४

two sovereigns, and both the brothers, at the same tdentical
time, could not bear the title of Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Miminin,
or Ghiyds-ud-Din, and, therefore, leaving out the additional
titles, the work of the artist probably, the title in the said
inscription is,—‘“ SULTAN-US-SALATIN, GHIYAS-UD-DUN-
YA WA UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, BIN SAM, KASIM-I-AMIR-
UL-MOMININ,” and throughout the inscription [given by
Thomas] the name of Mu'tzz-ud-Din, or Shthab-ud-Din
even, mever once occurs.

The Taj-ul-Ma’asir is quoted as an authority, and a
sufficient authority, to upset the statements of Minhaj-ud-
Din, whose father, Saraj-ud-Din, was Kazi of Sultan
Mu’izz-ud-Din’s army, and whose kinsman, the K4zi of
Tilak, was present on the spot; but I do not place trust
in the statements contained in that inflated work, unless
they are corroborated or confirmed by some other con-
temporary writer

In ELLIOT [page 211, vol. ii.] it is stated that the
Taj-ul-Ma’asir is rave in Europe. I have had four copies
to compare with the extracts from it given in that
work, and I find that the date mentioned there—587 H.—
for the Sultan’s victory [it totally ignores his defeat] over
Rae Pithora, is written €~ र~ [which may be either e~ or
e~] without any points in two copies of the four A7SS., in
the third «» with one dot over and one under, and in the
fourth es It is, therefore, evident that that date may be

either 7 or 9, just as one chooses to read it; but, as the
first battle, according to every other author who has written
on the subject, took place in 587 H., the same year, 587 H.,
cannot, for reasons already stated, be the same in which the
Sultan defeated Rae Pithord, and the former’s slave occupied
Dihli. See note 6, page 521, para. 3 of this Translation.

If the “best authorities” had looked at the Taj-ul-
Ma’asir attentively however [see also ELLIOT, vol. ii., page
217], they would have found that, even according to that
work, in Ramazan, the zimth month of 588 H.—the middle of
October [1192 A.D.]—Kutb-ud-Din had to march from
Kuhram to relieve Hansi [see also note 2 to page 516 of
this Translation], and that, subsequently, “When” [accord-
ing to ELLIOT, page 219], “the chief luminary threw its
shade in the sign of Libra, and temperate breezes began to
blow, after putting to flight the army of heat, Kutbu-d-din
marched from Kahram and took Mirath,” and subsequent
to that “he then encamped under the fort of Dehli, which
was also captured.’ This means 587 प्र. I suppose ?

These events are very briefly, but most clearly and

vi APPENDIX.

unmistakeably recorded in Fasih-i, in which it is stated :—
५ 588 H. a battle between Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son
of Sam, son of Husain, Lord of Ghaznin, and the Rae of
Dihli; the Rae is slain in the battle ; Dihli [territory] sub-
dued ; Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, locates Malik Kutb-ud-
Din, I-bak, in the fort of Kuhram, assigns him the govern-
ment of Dihli [territory], and retires from Hind. 589 प्र.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, marches from Kuhram towards
Dihli [the city], captures Dihli with its dependencies.”

If Mr. Blochmann had looked at “that excellent work”
the Haft-Iklim, he would have seen therein stated, that the
defeat of Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, took place in
587 H., his victory in 588 H., and that Dihli was occupied,
as the seat of government, in 589 H.

The Tabakat-i-Akbari, the author of which “sxst have
had the good MSS. older than” mine, also says, “ defeated
587 H, victorious 588 H., Dihli occupied and made the seat
of government by Kutb-ud-Din, in 589 H.”

The Tazkarat-ul-Mulik also says, first battle and defeat
of Mu’izz-ud-Din 587 H., his victory 588 H., Dihli sakex
§89 H., and, next year, 590 H., Mu’izz-ud-Din came again
on an expedition to Kinnauj.

The Tarikh-i-Alfi says that the Sultan gained the
victory over Rae Pithora in the year 578 of the Rzhéat,
that is §88 H.

The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh also says that Dihli was made
the seat of government in 589 H., and that, in the following
year, 590 H., the Sultan returned on the expedition against
Kinnauj.

The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh likewise says that Dihli
was made the seat of government in 589 H.

Buda’iini and Firishtah also will be found to agree with
the Tabakat-i-Akbari; and, to crown the whole, and put the
finishing touch to the picture, “the A’in,” so often quoted
by Mr. Blochmann, says that the first battle and defeat of
the Sultan took place in 587 H., the second and victory in
६88 H., and that in 2८ same year his slave took Dihli, but
nothing is said of his making it the seat of government;
and this agrees with the Taj-ul-Ma’asir, where nothing is
said of making Dihli the capital in that year; but that,
“from Dihli,” after staying some time there, “he marched
forth against Kol, in 590 H.”

I need not say more on this head, I think, and do not
doubt but that Mr. Thomas is open to conviction.

APPENDIX. vil

APPENDIX B.

On the name of Malik, afterwards Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din,
I-bak-t-Shil—of the Powerless Finger, page 513, and
the use of the Izafat in Persian.

IN the “Contributions” previously referred to, the cor-
rectness of the name, and by-name of this Turkish slave-
king is criticised.

Mr. Blochmann “thought” the name of ^ Qutbuddin of
the Paralyzed Hand,” [see BRIGG’S translation of Firishtah,
referred to in note at page 519 and 521 of this Translation,
which makes a very energetic warrior of him, considering
his “ Paralyzed Hand”], had been “set at rest” by Mr.
Thomas—but in this I cannot agree any more than in the
date 587 H. for the occupation of Dihli, and 599 and 600
for the conquest of Bengal—and he says that my different
MSS. “have clearly the same words as the Bibl.-Indica
Edition of the Tabaqat” but I assert to the contrary: my
MSS. run thus :—

(219 (~~ 91 „~> SG) 9 etl (५५ ally

but, in the Calcutta Text, after the word + the words
co jI—“ of a” or “the hand’—occur, and the Hamilton
MS.,the worst of the whole number collated, has the same,
but the other two MSS. from which the Printed Text ts
taken have not those words, and another M/S. has ४.;-
“of a” or “the foot ”—but all the rest of the J7SS. are as
I have given it above, and translated it.

I fail to see much difference in Mr. Blochmann’s “literal
translation : "—“ Outwardly he had no comeliness, and his
little FINGER [of one hand] possessed an infirmity. For this
reason they called him Azdak-1-Shall [Aibak with the
paralyzed HAND]” and my: “ He possessed no outward
comeliness, and the little fizger [of one hand?] had a frac-
ture, and’on that account he used to be styled I-bak-i-
Shil [the powerless-fizgered].” The only difference is that
where I translate == fad, Mr. Blochmann translates it
possessed—a mighty difference truly—and that I translate

viii APPENDIX.

the word ~= —guflandi—which is the wnperfect tense
of the verb, used also to imply continuity or habitude, and
is not the PAST tense, and that I give to =-= the meaning
of aconcrete noun. Isee no reason to alter my translation,
as lexicographers, who are supposed to know something of
the meanings of words, render << @ ruplure,a fracture,
defeat, as well as breaking, brokenness, &c.

Mr. Blochmann calls the Haft-Iklim “an excellent
work,” and in this I quite agree with him. Let him look
at it however, and he will find with respect to Kutb-ud-
Din, I-bak-i-Shil, that, in it, are the following words—
= Up! ], gl oy + gl pee GAG! S ८ ; -- which I defy any
one to translate otherwise than—/rom, or on this, that hts
८८८८2 FINGER WAS BROKEN 24९, used to call him I-bak.”
Which hand is not stated.

The author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, Buda’tini, and
even Firishtah, all of whom Mr. Blochmann states [‘‘ Con-
tributions,” page 138], “ MUST HAVE HAD very good MSS.
of the ‘Labagat-it-Nay¢lri,; ” have THE VERY SAME WORDS,
copying one from the other, as are contained in the Haft-
Iklim, the Tazkarat-ul-Mulaik has the same, and also the
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. Some others say the same, but
I need not name them here, as those I have mentioned
are easily obtained for reference, but all leave out the J:
without which #.'—finger, is meaningless. Mr. Blochmann
quotes the Shams-ul-Lughat: \et him look at it for the
word e..! and he will see these words—=+0Cil ne „~प ० 1--
“T-bak wtth kasy means FINGER,” as well as the ofkher
meanings mentioned in the “Contributions.”

The Tarikh-i-Majami’-ul-Khiyar—not the work even of
a resident in India—has ss Jo dilly 9) og) SS 91 ped ~ ge
—“ As his little finger was broken they called him I-bak-i-
Shil.” The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, which copies Minhaj-ud-
Din, has the same words as given in this Translation ; and
it is satisfactory to know that those authors, who say his
little finger was broken, read the word <~ as I have read
it. Of course, neither Minhaj-ud-Din, nor any other who
writes I-bak-i-Shil which even, on Mr. Blochmann’s own
showing, is in the Calcutta Printed Text as in other
copies, is right in putting Js whether it be skz/ or shall
LAST, and it ought, according to Mr. Blochmann, to be
inverted into “ Shall-Aibak,” otherwise it is “z#-Persian.”
None of these authors who write I-bak-i-Shil therefore,
according to this theory, could have known their own
language! He also, in his literal translation, renders the
passage “and his little € [of one hand] possessed an
infirmity,” and yet he turns him into “ Aibak with the

APPENDIX. ix

paralyzed HAND.” Because one finger was broken, or
“possessed an infirmity,” it does not follow that the whole
hand was paralyzed. Mr. Blochmann could not have
thought of these matters when he proceeded to criticise
the correctness of my rendering. ति

I have never said that I-bak alone meant /-dak of the
broken finger, but, with s#z/ added to it—I-bak-i-Shil—as I
have already stated in note I, page 513-14 of this Transla-
tion, and I have also stated that, in Zurkzsh, I-bak “ means
finger” only: ०८ broken or fractured-fingered, or the like.
Mr. Blochmann could not have read the notes through, or -
failed to see what I said of I-bak-i-Lang in the same note.
Nor have I said that I-bak was not Turkish, for he was a
Turk, and so bore a Turkish name.

Neither have I ever hinted, much less stated, that his
real name was Kutb-ud-Din: to have said so would have
been absurd. That is his Musalman titular name only, as
Shams-ud-Din was the Musalman title of his slave, I-yal-
timish. In my note 1, page 513, I have said that Kutb-
ud-Din could not have been hts real name, nor I-bak either,
which I looked upon as a nick-name or by-namte. So Mr.
Blochmann here, unknown to himself probably, has come
to the same conclusion. I should not write his name how-
ever under any circumstance “ Qutbuddin,” any more than
I should translate it Thepolestarofthefaith, but Kutb-ud-Din
—The Pole-star of [the] Faith.

There is not the least cause for “the zzgéfat” to be
cancelled in I-bak-i-Shil: to do so would be contrary to
the primary and simplest rules of the Persian Grammar—
the Irani I mean—of the “ Turdn{” dialect I know nothing.
In Shil I-bak an adjective precedes the noun, and the
usls'—is@fat—.does not take place; but, when the adjective
or qualifying word follows the noun, the £asrah of-1z@fat is
required. See the “A’in,” page 629 for an example, where
Mr. Blochmann himself writes “ A’ZAM KHAN, vide KHAN-
1-A’ZAM.” Any Persian Grammar, however simple, will
show this, as well as Lumsden, or Sir W. Jones, Forbes, &c.
The following is given as an example, and 15 very pertinent
to the subject :—

“The last letter of every Persian word is quiescent, or
un-accented—i. €. y= 25 ~~ 1 asp, ahorse; es dast,a hand;
>+ mard, a man. But, in composition, when such word
is either the Gls -muzdaf, or governing noun, or the yy
mausif, or substantive noun, the last letter must be
accented with the sasrah of isdfat: as for example—ale I
asp-t-jald—a swift horse; = -+-»—dast-i-Zaid—the hand
of Zaid ; अर °, mard-i-nck—a good man; <~], ,*, rdh-t-rdst

x APPENDIX.

—a true or right way, the asrah being the sign of the
governing noun, or the antecedent of the relative adjec-
tive.”

Again: “When the adjective follows the substantive,
the latter must be accented with the kasrah, as se!
asp-t-siah—a black horse, but, on the contrary, when the
adjective precedes the noun, the asvah must not be used,
as qul she 572 asp.—a black horse. The same rule 15
likewise applicable to the governing and the governed
nouns substantive; aS ye; „५५८५ — badshahan-t-samin —
kings of the earth ; whe ss shah-t-jahan—king of the world ;
se uke jahan-shah—world-king,” &c.

When I learned these simple rules just thirty years since,
I did not expect I should have to quote them again. Shil
I-bak therefore and I-bak-i-Shil, and I-bak-i-Lang, as he is
styled in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, and in Fanakati, come
under these rules, but no writer who pretended to elegance
of style would prefer the former to the latter. Inst.
which Mr. Blochmann himself translates [“ Contributions,”
page 136] mir-z-mah, “ Lord of the Moon,” why is he so wa-
Persian, and why does he not “cancel the zzéfat,” and
write ~ १, #ah-mir—Moon Lord? and without an artificial
izafat whence comes “of the”? _

I do not know that any one has said that Mr. Thomas is
mot quite correct in looking upon e! as “the original
name.” I, certainly, have not said so. I only write I-bak
what Mr. Thomas writes Azdeg and Mr. Blochmann A 2८446,
but I think Mr. Blochmann would have some difficulty in
showing me the word written with a madd, viz.: ७ He
certainly cannot show it to me in any copy of the Tabakat-
i-Nasiri, and I never saw it anywhere else so written.

As to what is given as the legend on coins he is said to
have issued, and his being merely called I-bak therein,
which Mr. Blochmann deems quite sufficient to refute me
by my own remarks, it 15 evident that, before Mr. Bloch-
mann had calmly read my statements, he penned this
portion of his “Contributions.” I read in the legend given
at page 525 of this Translation the words—Sultan Kutb-
ud-Din, I-bak, as plain as it is possible to print. He would
scarcely have put ८ or shall upon his coins. Did Timir
add the word Lazg to the legend on his? Of course not.
See the ADDITIONAL NOTE to this Translation, on the
subject of the legends on these coins: end of Nasir-ud-Din,
Mahmid Shah's reign, page 717.

I do not consider that Mr. Thomas or any one else has
“set this question at rest” with respect to “ Aibeg ;” and
had Mr. Blochmann not been quite so hasty he might have

APPENDIX. xi

read a note in this Translation [note ^ page 729], where I
have remarked upon the number of other Maliks styled
ad.'—some five or six or more, including Ulugh-Khan’s
brother.

As to there being no such word as sfz/ in Persian mean-
ing limp, weak, soft, paralyzed, &c. [“ Contributions,” page
136] I do not agree with Mr. Blochmann. It is not
“Turdn{,” and may be Irani, or possibly local, and peculiar
to the Farsiwans of Afghanistan, but is commonly used ;
and another Persian word—sku/—is used with it in the
sense mentioned. As to Mr. Blochmann’s “rare Arabic
word shal or shall [which “rare” word J have also referred
fo in my note, page 513], he says it means “having a
withered hand,” but I say it means a hand or foot paralyzed
or powerless, &c., on the authority of an excellent Lexicon
in Persian, which explains it thus :—

५0 GL 10 WG) SaaS, ok 5 cmd Cary

I think I may venture to assert that Sultan Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, was rather unlikely to have
purchased a slave with the whole of one hand paralyzed :
a finger broken or paralyzed would have been no very
great detriment, but how could a one-hand paralyzed man
fight on horseback? See too the wonderful feats Dow
and BRiGGS—not Firishtah—make him perform. As to
its being “a rave Arabic word” I beg to say that it is a
most common one among the Afghans: in fact, they rarely
ever use another word, except by adding Js shud/ to it—
“ shall-o-shull.”” See my Pushto Dictionary, page 656.

In the following page [137] of his “ Contributions”
Mr. Blochmann, referring to my mentioning in a note to
my Translation, that Aram Shah, said to be the son of
I-bak, and, by some, the adopted son, is called I-bak’s
brother by Abi-l-Fazl, says he takes “the opportunity to
justify Abul-Fazl, and that, in his [own] 4.10 text, Abul-
Fazl states twice distinctly that A’r4m Shah was Aibak’s
son.” Mr. Blochmann’s A’in may, but in my A’in—the
MS. 1 quoted, and which is now before me—a “good
old copy’—has these words, in which may ८८ a clerical
error :— *

HINES ०4 ५७» Ly gl oly ग LP lel esl po 0४५) += gh ८४६,

At page 137 of his “ Contributions” Mr. Blochmann
considers the word |! dz “a moon” in the word ay!
to occur in other names of Indian History, and in
what he calls “Ai-tigin” or &tigin [he is not certain
which perhaps: wi can be written Z in “Turdni” pro-

xii APPENDIX.

bably], and in “Aji-lititmish, the emperor Altamsh,” but
unfortunately Gi with madd over the | does not occur in
either of those names nor will Mr. Blochmann show them
to me so written even in the Bibl.-Indica edition of the
“ Tabaqat.”

If “Ai-lititmish” be the name of the so-called “em-
peror” [but why not write also the “emperor” Mahmid,
son of Sabuk-Tigin, the “emperor” Mu’izz-ud-Din, and
the “emperor” Kutb-ud-Din? They were Sultans by
title as well as ‘‘Az-lititmish” was] and if “Az-lititmish”
be right why style him “ Altamsh” still? Such must be
“behind modern research.” If Ji be contained in the words
oe! and <tal'—there are no madds here—and en-
tirely separate from the .6 and > of those words,
how does Mr. Blochmann account for the words ८२७
Kal-timish, (~= Tak-timish, and (+~ —Sal-timish? These
are names often occurring as well as => — I-yal-
timish, elsewhere than in Indian history, because they
are Turk names, but the last part of these compound words
is +3 sometimes written Ut and ~. and the first part
Ji—y—J. and J! respectively, and not Gi at all. After
this same fragile theory, I-yal-Arsalan —,».,) J.) and
I-yal-diiz—j,0,! which latter the author of theTabakat-i-
Nasiri and some others write :,o Yal-duz [where is the
“31 @ ‘a moon’” here? jah! is said to mean @ star in
Turkish], those names must be written A?-liarsalan and
Az-lildiz. I should like to know the titles of these
“oldest Dictionaries” which give the pronunciation “Az-
lititmish.” No, no, the “yi @ ‘a moon’” in these last
names 15 all moonshine.

In the Farang-i-Rashidi—a Dictionary published in the
Bibl. Indica Series, among the meanings assigned to ७1 is
six-fingered. This is something new. In that work also
v'signifying soon, is not written vi with madd.

Since the above was written I also find that the same
Dictionary contains the word J+ but that form of it which
signifies, soft, ductile, lax, feeble, relaxed, weak, &c., is
written with short w—shu/, which is evidently the same
word as used by the Afghans referred to at page xi of this.

APPENDIX. xill

APPENDIX C.

On the correct name of the conqueror of Bihar and Lakhana-
wati, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud- Din, Muhammad, son of
Bakht-yar-ud-Din, the Khalj, and others of his tribe,
and the use of the kasrah of tzafat for bin, son of,
&e., &C.

THE name of this Malik is also criticised in the “Contrt-
butions,” page 137. Mr. Blochmann says :—

“The only thing we knew hitherto (and I believe it 15
all we know now) is that the conqueror of Bengal was
called

Muhammad Bakhtyar,
and the name of his paternal uncle was
Muhammad Mahmid.’

“ The names of these two persons Major Raverty breaks
up, by introducing an artificial zzdéfat, or sign of the geni-
tive [see azte on the use of the izafat and the ८

and any Grammar on the subject], into four names, viz.
Muhammad-i-Bakhtydar, and Muhammad-i-Mahmud * * * *

Major Raverty says in explanation that ‘in his older
MSS.” the word ८, or son, is inserted between the
words Muhammad and Bakhtyar zx the heading of Chap-
ter V., which contains the biography of the conqueror of
Bengal; hence the conqueror of Bengal was Muhammad,
and “the father’s name, it appears, was Bakhtyar, the son
of Mahmud.” It is not stated in how many SS. this din
occurs; but, though it occur in the heading, it never
occurs in the text.

The name of Muhammad Bakhtyar occurs more than
thirty times in Major Raverty’s Chapters V. and VI. (pages
548 to 576); but in every case Major Raverty gives Mu-
hammad-i-Bakhtydar, i.e. the Izafat. Hence his MSS.
have no 67” in the text. In the heading of Chapter VI,
there is no 422, though Major Raverty puts it in; he tries
even to do so in the heading to Chapter VIII., in the name

1 See page 549 and note 4.

xiv APPENDIX.

of Husdmuddin ’Iwaz, and “one or two authors” get the
credit of it.”

“Nor does the word 627 occur in the WSS. of the Tajul-
Maasir, in Firishtah, the Tabaqat 1 Akbari, Badaoni, and
later writers, though the authors of these histories ४145;
have had very good MSS. of the Tabaqat i Nagirf, some of
which, in all probability, were older than those in Major
Raverty’s possession. Hence I look upon the correctness
of the solitary 42% as doubtful.”

My answer is, I “put” nothing “in”: the Taj-ul-Ma’asir
has no 4242८ headings like the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, and does
not use the word 42, but, that work not being written in
the “ Turani idiom,” the Kasrak of zedfat, where necessary,
is understood. The author of the Taj-ul-Ma’asir, which
work Mr. Blochmann has, of course, examined, could not
possibly have had a “good” or “old copy” of the “ Taba-
qat” seeing that it was not written until more than thirty
years after, the Taj-ul-Ma’asir was finished. Neither has
the Tabakat-i-Akbari Arabic headings, Buda’iini says he
copies from his patron’s work. I have already shown, in my
notes 6 and 4 to pages 697 and 711, and in many other
places of this Translation, what the Tabakat-i-Akbari is
The Author in all probability saw the Tabakat-i-Nasiri
but, as I suppose, he did not take the trouble to collate
different copies, or devote a year or two to that task
alone, as I have done, and contented himself with one—for
example say the I.O.L. A/S. 1952, “a good old copy”
too, which one person, at least, styles an “ autograph "—the
short comings of the Tabakat-i-Akbari may be accounted
for. Firishtah contains nothing whatever—not a single event
—respecting the Turk Sultans of the Mu'izzi and Shamsi
dynasties, but what is contained in the Tabakat-i-Akbari,
even to the poetical quotations and the blunders also.

I do not propose to change the name of the “conqueror
of Bengal”: I do more: I do change it without the least
hesitation on the authority of the best extant copies of the
text of the “ Tabaqat,” which, as Mr. Blochmann most
correctly observes, “zs the only authority we possess for this
period,” and it will require positive proof to the contrary to
make me give up the point. Because a name has been
written incorrectly before, on wrong assumption, or on mere
theories, and because the two names Muhammad and
Bakht-yar have been handed down and repeated from one
writer to another as that of ove man only, is there any
reason why such error should be obstinately stuck to
through thick and thin?

But at the same time I must state that I have naught to

APPENDIX. Xv

gain or lose by the change: I have no object in changing
it, and only do so on the “undoubted authority ” of my
author. The matter lies in a nut-shell: either the father
was called Bakht-yar, or he was mot. If he was so called,
then 4e has hitherto had the credit for what his son per-
formed.

As to Muhammad with the kasrah of izaéfat being
correct, I fancy Mr. Blochmann, even in a Muhammadan
“School Register,” [a great authority certainly,] never
found one person called Muhammad Mahmid without the
last referred to his father—certainly not if a Musalman in
his senses wrote it down. But with regard to the “con-
queror’s” name, Muhammad, and Bakht-yar—that is to say
Bakht-yar-ud-Din—his.father’s name, the word 4z#—son of
—I first noticed in the oldest British Museum copy, one of
the three best I have had for my translation, and Professor
Rieu, on whose words, opinion, and experience in such
matters, I place implicit confidence, considers it a WS. of
the 14th century—or about a century after the time that
Minhaj-ud-Din wrote. The word 427 also occurs in the
other British Museum J/S., and in the best St. Petersburg
copy, which is another of the three I refer to, and in the
very old copy I have—which apparently looks, but may not
be, much older than either of the other two—the whole of
the headings are pointed, and in this last A7S. the word
bin does not occur, for at this particular place, as well as
in a few other instances where 427, as in the case of Mu-
hammad 6:2 Siri, of whom more anon, is, subsequently,
given, the 427 has clearly been left out, accidentally, by the
copyist. Mr. Blochmann’s “solitary dz” also occurs in
the best Paris copy. So d:a—“son of’”—occurs in four
MSS. in three of the best and oldest copies ; the izafat in
a fourth which often uses the izafat for BIN tn other instances
where son of 1s undoubtedly ineant; and 61 in a fifth,
considered to be a precious “autograph” of the author's.
In the other A7SS. vowel points are not marked, but the
izafat is, without doubt, meant there, as in other places
where not marked. The “one or two authors” seems to
be disapproved of—I had an object in not stating all my
author’s names at the time.

I can give hundreds of such like instances of 2 and an
izafat being used indiscriminately. But just look at the
Calcutta Printed Text for example—the first page that
meets the eye—page rr—q4, the heading is “ Al-Amir
Muhammad, 677 'Abbias,” and immediately under, second
line, are the words :—2 ule sent jel * eee oe oll. and,
as rendered in my version, page 332, “He made over

Xvi APPENDIX.

the kingdom of Ghir to Amir Muhammad-i-’ Abbas,” and
which Mr. Blochmann, according to his theory, would have
written “Amir Muhammad ’Abbas,” and so have made one
person of the plural. There is another good example at
pages vie and ter VIZ. i— ple न= ७ deat ८ wie — Ghiyas-
ud-Din, Mahmud 612 Muhammad-:-Sim. Here &22 is
used for one person—the son, and an izafat understood and
required for a third person—the grandfather : there is no
izafat marked, but it ४145८ be used, because Muhammad, the
father, was not called Sam, but he was the son of Sam—that
is Baha-ud-Din, Sam. Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mahmiid’s father’s
name, is written in full in the headings with 42”, but under,
^~ Jeet yall els —Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-z-Sam, and
likewise 115 brother’s, pl == yl) jas — Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Muhammad-:-Sam, but, by the theory put forth in the
“ Contributions,’ and the system followed in the transla-
tion of the “ A’{n-i-Akbari,” they would both be turned
into Sam, which alone refers to their father, and not to
them, as the headings as well as the text—including the
printed text—most undoubtedly show, and many other
examples are to be found in the work. The names in the
headings are written in Arabic, in every copy, throughout
the whole book, and in the body of the work, according to
the Persian idiom, the izafat for 42” is understood, as is also
the case with the name of Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad
6in Bakht-yar{ud-Din], the Khalj, and others.

Another matter tending to prove that Bakht-yar is the
father’s titular name, is the fact that the author of the
Tabakat-i-Akbari—one of those “who must have had” the
good old MSS.—styles him ‘ Malik Muhammad-i-Bakht-
yar-ud-Din.” Muhammad could not possibly, be called
Bakht-yar-ud-Din, and Ikhtiyadr-ud-Din foo. The same
author, by the bye, at the head of the chapter, styles the
“conqueror” of Bengal IKHTIYAR-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD,
only. Why? Because he understood that Bakht-yar-ud-
Din was his father's name.

“Further,” says Mr. Blochmann, “supposing ९४ to be
correct, is it not strange, nay totally un-Persian, to speak
continually of Muhammad-dzn-Bakhtyar, or Muhammad-:-
Bakhtyadr, instead of using the single name of Muhammad ?
This would be Arabic usage. Thirdly, if Mahmud were the
grandfather, it would have been extraordinary on the part
of the author to have left out the grandfather in the head-
ing, and in the beginning of the chapter, when Muhammad
Bakhtyar’s descent is spoken of, and merely incidentally to
mention it in connexion with the paternal uncle.”

It certainly would be w#-Persian to speak continually of

APPENDIX. ॐ

ष पञा12त-57 Bakht-yar, hence, after the Arabic heading,
as in other places throughout the whole work of Minhaj-ud-
Din, the Persian izafat is understood. Scores of examples
in the text also show that a man’s single name, such for:
example as Muhammad would be here, is unusual except in
the case of some slaves whose fathers’ names appear to
have been unknown. So engrafted is the custom of using
the father’s name with the son’s [but not the grandfather's],
that in our Indian Courts we find र and walad always
used, and even in Bombay we find low caste Hindis,
Dehrs, &c., styled, for example—“ Lakhsman walad Nur-
sia,” and “ Pandi dz Santo,” &c. A grandfather's name is
very seldom put in the headings of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri—
it is not usual to do so. Had the paternal uncle’s name
occurred in a heading the word 42% would have been written
no doubt ; but, as I have before noticed, did any person ever
hear one man called Muhammad Mahmiid ? I know, how-
ever, that one of the sons of Mahmid of Ghaznin is styled
Muhammad-z-Mahmid, and that his uncles are styled,
Nasr-¢-Sabuk-Tigin, and Yisuf-2-Sabuk-Tigin respectively.
What a nice thing for a translator to make one man of
them !

“ Lastly,” writes Mr. Blochmann, “the use of the Izafat,
instead of 42% or pisar (son), ts restricted to poetry, and does
not occur in prose [see note {, page 138]. I see, therefore,
no reason to change the name of the conqueror of Bengal,
as proposed by Major Raverty.”

This is a matter of such vital importance that I must
give two examiples, out of very many, of what may be
caused through a translator not knowing where to place
the zs@fat so much objected to by Mr. Blochmann as
“never occurring” in Persian prose in place of ९2, son of,
which 15 so “z-Persian.”

A careful and conscientious writer like ELPHINSTONE
says, in book v., chap. 1, of his “ History of India,” that
“ Mahommed Casim ” invaded Sind ; and, page after page,
and paragraph after paragraph, it is said that “ Cdsim” did
this, and “Cdszm” did that, and that ‘‘the Mohametan
arms ceased with the death of Cdszm.”

In ELLIOT also, vol. i., page 138, the extract from the
Chach-Namah commences with the death of Rae Dahir
“at the hands of Muhammad Kasim Sakiff.” These
names—for they are used as that of ove person—“ Mu-
hammad Kdstm” occur in scores of places throughout the
extract, but, at page 157 we also have “’Imadu-d-din
Muhammad Kasim bin Abi’ Akil Sakifi.”

“Muhammad Kasim,” as though it were the name of one

b

xviii APPENDIX.

man, duly appears in vol. vi. of the same work, as conqueror
of Sind

Now “Casim” or “Kasim” had nothing whatever to do
with Sind or its conquest. He was dead before kis son,
Muhammad, was appointed by his uncle to lead the ’Arabs
into Sind, and so the father, who was in his grave at the
time, has had credit, up to this moment, in our so-called
Histories of India, for what his son performed, in the same
manner that Bakht-yar-ud-Din, the Khalj, has had the
credit for what his son, Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, performed in
Lakhanawati

From Tabari downwards, the name of the conqueror of
Sind is ’"Imad-ud-Din, Muhammad, soz of Kasim, son of
Muhammad, soz of Hakam, son of Abi-’Ukail, and Al-
Biladiiri, an extract from whose work is given in Elliot,
says the same as Tabari; but, because the author of
the Chach-Namah headed his chapters in Persian instead
of Arabic, the necessary izafat indicating soz of, which
is declared never to occur for that purpose, was not recog-
nized, and hence this lamentable and absurd error. Such
is History.

I have already given examples of this; but turn to
page r.—4o of the Calcutta Printed Text, which is the same
as other copies in these instances, and the fourth line from
the heading are these words eo, 4G ०9 ++ 57: GF oe —
chin takht-t-Ghaznin ba Amir Mahmiid -1-Sabuk-Tigin
vasid. Does Mr. Blochmann mean to assert that Sabuk-
Tigin is not the father’s name? So much for the
random assertion that “the zzdfat instead of 6%” or
pisar [which last I have not used] is restricted to poetry,
and does not occur in prose,’ and according to the foot-
note that it “zs rave in poetry, and poets do not like to use
this Iedfat.” If Mr. Blochmann met with the following
in Indian History — ५५ य |e ५५ algal oys— I wonder
what he would think of it: he would write it ^ Shihabuddau-
lah Hardin Bughra [lak Khan,” and make one person of it.
I, however, read it—* Shihab-ud-Daulah, Hariin-i-Bughra-
i-I-lak-Khian,” because I know for certain that Harin who
is entitled Shihab-ud-Daulah is the son of Bughra, who is
the son of the I-lak Khan, who is named Misa, who were
Khans in Mawar-un-Nahr—of the Afrasiyabi dynasty.

Next, in the same foot-note {, page 138 of the “Contri-
butions,” Mr. Blochmann says that “ Minhaj-i-Siraj” [lI
write Sardj]| does not mean in prose, ‘ Minhdaj, the son of
Siraj,’ but Minhaj who writes under the name of Siraj.
That the father’s name was Siraj has nothing to do with it.”

Mr. Blochmann would find it difficult to show me where

APPENDIX. xix

he “writes under the name of Siraj.” I suppose it will be
allowed that our Author knew his own name, and his
father’s, and if that be allowed, he calls himself repeatedly
Minhaj-ud-Din-i-Saraj, and he further says that his father
was the Maulana Saraj-ud-Din, whose father was the
Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din, ’Usman, whose father was the
Imam, ’Abd-ul-Khialik, the Jirjani. For these reasons
ABO-’UMR-I-’USMAN, who is also called MINHAJ-UD-DIN,
sometimes styles himself in this work—MINHAJ-I-SARAJ-
I-MINHAJ—referring to father and grandfather also. Hcre
are two zz@fats, in prose too. See also note 7, page 727 of
this Translation. ।

I have already shown Mr. Blochmann’s theory of “arti-
ficial” 12285, as he calls them, to be “m-Persian,” but, to
prove that another statement here made is likewise in-
correct, I must prominently notice another izafat. It refers
to the article “ Who were the ‘ Patan’ or ‘ Pathan’ Sultans
of Dikhit” —the paper in the JOURNAL A. ऽ. BENGAL, for
1875, page 31. Mr. Blochmann says in the same foot-
note {, page 138, of his “ Comtrzbutions,” para. 2, “The form
of the name of Muhammad-i-Sirf, on whose name Major
Raverty has built a hypothesis, is doubtful for this Izafat.”

Mr. Blochmann, apparently, did not notice that the
matter of the kasrah of izafat, at page 31 of the JOURNAL,
has reference so/ely to FIRISHTAH and his translators. If
he will take the trouble to refer to this Translation, page
316, and to the corresponding place page r—38 of the
Calcutta Printed Text, he will find the heading, ‘‘ SORI, dz
MUHAMMAD,” showing that here Siri is itself a Ghiri
name. Then let him turn to page 320 of the Translation,
and he will find the heading “ MALIK MUHAMMAD 6i”
SORI,” but in the corresponding place in the printed text,
page *-—40, merely wy- weal If I chose to be guided
- by Mr. Blochmann’s theory on that heading alone, and did

not know that the kasrah of yess or description was re-

quired, and was in any doubts respecting the persons I was
writing about, I might have called him, as Mr. Blochmann
would, and as Mr. Dowson, in ELLIOT [vol. ii., p. 285], has
done—Muhammad Suri, as though the two names belonged
to one man, and have turned ¢wo men into one accordingly.
The printed text also mentions him as ९9 sem twice in the
same page, but a third time, in the last line of that page,
when speaking of Malik Muhammad having made over
Ghir to his e/dest son, his name is given with his father’s
and grandfather’s name—wyyo ७ doe" ७० Cle gt yee! VIZ: —Amir
Ba ’Ali, son of Muhammad, son of Siri.

€ 2

XX | APPENDIX.

Look again at the following heading in the Printed Text
— page «:—4I, and there it is again confirmed, and we have
we ७ dent og (७ + — Abi-’Ali, son of Muhammad,
son of Siri, but, in the ninth line, the father is again called
wy test the zedfat being understood. The next heading
also refers to Muhammad being Siiri’s son, viz :—’ Abbas,
son of Shis, son of Muhammad, son of Siri.

If my long note on this subject, 7, page 321, had been
read before taxing me with building up a doubtful “ hypo-
thesis,” it might have been seen that in the Kiutab-i-
Yamini, the author of which was contemporary with this
very Muhammad, sox of Siri, who, it is pretended [mereiy
because Dow and Briggs so rendered it and made a “ Pa-
than ” of him], was called Muhammad Siri, he is never once
referred to as Muhammad but as ws ~»'—the son of SURI.
The Tarikh-i-Alfi, Fasih-i, Jahan-Ara, Rauzat-us-Safa,
Habib-us-Siyar, Mir’at-i-Jahan-Numa, and Muntakhab-ut-
Tawarikh, call him soz of SURI only; and in the account
of Mahmid-i-Sabuk-Tigin’s raid upon the Ghiris in the
Jami’-ut-Tawarikh he is also merely called son of SURI:
never Muhammad. The Bengal A. S. Library contains a
copy [No. 14] of this work, and Mr. Blochmann can refer
to it. He will find, if the portion copied for me has been
correctly copied, that in the first two places this Ghirian
chief is called ++ Shiri—a mistake of = for but, four
or five lines from the end of the paragraph, he is styled
9 py —pisar-t-Shiri—that is the soz of SHURI, and it is
clear that Rashid-ud-Din followed the Kitab-i-Yamini and
styled him soz of SURI likewise, but that, in two instances,
the copyist of that 17S. No. 14, or the Calcutta £4723, left
out the word ,.. before the name, in the first two instances.

If the two words ’Ali Mardan alone mean ’Ali who was
as valiant as many Men, and if Muhammad Sheran alone
also mean Muhammad who was equal to many Lions, and
his brother is also “equal to many Lions” [rather strange
that doth brothers should be so], whence come these fz'e or
six “artificial” words, since, without artificial means being
adopted, the words ’Ali Mardin are—’ Adi men—and Mu-
hammad Sheran—Muhammad Lions? These words would,
without the 4asvah of description, be much the same as
Shah Jahan—King World—referred to in what I have said
on the izafat, and which is a complete answer also to these
questions. Muhammadan “School Registers” have nothing
to do with it. The Khalj Turks of Garmsir did not keep
any Registers.

As this answer to Mr. Blochmann’s criticisms may fall
under the notice of readers not acquainted with the [rani

APPENDIX. xxi

dialect of the Persian, and as he constantly refers me to his
4.11, I must point out how inconsistent he is himself about
these tzéfats—I do not think I can be taxed with incon-
sistency—and how often his zs@fats are used when they are
not required, and wanting when not used. These incon-
sistencies, which I take from his translation of the A’éz-2-
Akbari, may be seen at a glance; he appears to have no
fixed system :—“ Mir Sharif-z-Amulf” requires the izafat
according to his theory, but, as Mir Sharif was a native of
Amul, the y@-i-nisbat or of relation afixed to Amul—,_.'—
i.e. of Amul—as it is written in the 47S. from which it is
taken, was sufficient, as Fars—Persia, /@rsi—Persian or of
Persia ; and Panj-ab—Panj-abi; Afghan, Afghani, &c.

The same occurs in ^ Shaikh Farfd-z-Bukhari,” which last
word containing the yé@-2-zzsbat means OF Bukhara, or the
Bukharian. As it now stands it is “ Shaikh Farid of or the
Bukhdrt, Again, inthe words “Alauddin-z-K 427,” although,
at the very first page of Part III. of the “Contributions”
referred to, the word Khilji is called an adjective. |

In another place, I find, “A’zam Khan” vide: Khdn-t-
A’zam (see example of Izafat previously given], and we
find “Khan-I-A’zam” accordingly, but Mir-z-’Adl [as I
should write it] is not correct according to Mr. Bloch-
mann’s theory: it must be ^ 2 ’Adi.” For example, I
will give a list of some of the titular names and patro-
nymics, and Mr. Blochmann’s different ways of writing
them :—

“Chingiz Khan” in histories called “Qadn I Buzurg” ;
Cadr Jahan Muft{ requires no zga@fat, but ^ Mufti-1-Ma-
malik ” and ^ Umard-1-Kibér” ; “Khan Khanan” and “ Khdn-
khanan” require none: “Khan-I-Kalan” and “ Khan-i-
A’zam” require it; “Khan ’A’lam Firuzjang,” “ Nucrat-
jang” and “Khan Zaman” require none: “ Rustam-I-
Zaman,” Tuzak-I-Jahangiri, and Farang-I-Jahangir{ want
it; but Bahar-i-Danish from me would be a dangerous
innovation too, and my “Shah-i-Jahan” is dangerous and
un-Persian, but “ Malikah 2 Jahan” is not!!: “ A’caf Khan
‘Abdul Majid” requires no izafat, but the same person
“’Abdul Majid-1-A’caf Khan” requires it; Sulaiman Ka-
rarani [by-the-bye, there is 70 such name] requires no izafat,
but, a little farther on, it requires to be written ^ Sulaiman-
I-Kararan{”!

I could multiply these examples ad infinitum.

“ Burdan-kot may be due north of Bagura (Bogra) in
Long. 89° 28’, Lat. 25° 8! 25”, close to Govindganj, on the
Karataya River,” but I fail to find it in the 119th Sheet of
the Indian Atlas; but great changes must have taken

xxii APPENDIX.

place since Minhaj-ud-Din wrote, when “a river” flowed in
front of Azs Burdan-kot, “of vast magnitude, the name of
which is Bag-mati; and, when tt enters the country of Hin-
diistan, they style it, in the Hindii dialect, Samund (ocean)
and, in magnitude, breadth, and depth, it is three times
more than the river Gang” [see page 561], and the Karataya
must therefore have grown “small by degrees and beau-
tifully less.”

I did not “ zdentify Maksadah:” My words [note 4, page
876] are “the Maxabad probdadly of the old Maps,” &c.

Mr. Blochmann at page 142 kindly recommends me to
Mr. Thomas’s “ INITIAL COINAGE OF BENGAL,” regarding
the reigns of “Muhammad Bakhtydar’s” immediate suc-
cessors; but as I have the account of “ Minhaj-ud-Din,”
“ the sole authority for the period,’ and some others, I can
dispense with it, and have already done so in my Transla-
tion. Perhaps some coins of Muhammad 4: Bakht-yar
.May yet come to light.

I beg further to notice here, now that I am on the subject
of coins, that, although the Shansabani rulers, and some
of their freed-men after them, used the title of “ KASIM-I-
AMIR-UL-MOMININ,” it did not follow that they “shared
their property” with the “Commander of the Faithful,” as
Mr. Blochmann imagines from his remarks on Thomas’s
readings of rare Bengal Coins, at page 203 of the Society's
Proceedings for 1872. Our author's derivation of the
title will be found at page 315 of this Translation. See
also page 368, and the Skhams-ul-Lughat wherein the
word is also explained, but it is evidently of Arabic
derivation.

APPENDIX. xxiii

APPENDIX D.

On the date of the capture of the city of Adwand Bihar by
Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar-
uad-Din, the Khalj, page 551

THE next matter is the conquest of Bihar by Muhammad
bin Bakht-yar, the Khalj, which Mr. Thomas fixes at
599 H. on the authority, Mr. Blochmann “believes,” of the
Taj-ul-Ma’asir [ELLIOT’S version probably], which states
that Kutb-ud-Din took दाप in that year; but the
MSS. of the Taj-ul-Ma’asir examined by me, unfor-
tunately, have that same stubborn «~ and what makes the
date still more doubtful gees —viZ.: alone 5 gee 5 @~ sie
which, from the want of diacritical points, may be 577,
579, 597, Or 599, just as the reader chooses to render the |
words.

At page 523 of this Translation [note, para. 2] I have
noticed that “it is astonishing that the Musalmans re-
mained quiet for ऊ years,” assuming that 599 प्र. was the
correct year in which Ka4linjar was taken, which, I add,
“was the same year in which Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din died,”
but, from the examination of these four 9.9. of the Taj-
ul-Ma’asir again, I am in doubt whether 597 H. is not the
most correct according to that work. Minhaj-ud-Din says
the Sultan died in 599 H., but, as I have noticed in note 4,
page 383, some authors give 597 H., and some 598 प्र. as
the date of his death

Those who suppose that “Bengal was conquered”’ [the
surprise and capture of Nidiah I refer to] in 599 H. do not
consider how Muhammad, ¢ Bakht-yar, could have
‘‘ reigned,” as he is said to have done, ^“ ¢welve years,” seeing
that he was assassinated in 602 H.

Iam told that I am mistaken, according to my own
authorities, in connexion with the very doubtful date in
the Taj-ul-Ma’asir above referred to. Mr. Blochmann says,
page 134, Part III. of his “Contributions” :—

) That Muhammad Bakhtydr appeared before Qut-
buddin 1 0244४ and was rejected by reason of his humble
condition

XxiV APPENDIX.

According to Major Raverty, Dihlf was occupied in
589 H.’, hence Muhammad Bakhtydr must have been re-
jected in or after 589 H.

(2) After his rejection, Muhammad Bakhtydr goes to
Badaon where Hizabr gives him a fixed salary.

(3) After some time, Muhammad Bakhtyar goes to Audh,
where he obtains certain fiefs near the Bihar frontier. He
now undertakes plundering expeditions, which continue,
according to the printed text, for one or two years.

In a foot-note is added, “ Major Raverty has left this
out.”

(4) He invades Southern Bihdr? and takes the town of
Bihar. He then goes to Dihlf, where he remains for some-
time at Qutb’s court.

(5) The second year after his conquest of Bihar, he sets
out for Bengal, and takes Nadiya.

Now how is it possible, with these five chronological par-
ticulars, that Muhammad Bakhtyar could have left Bihar,
as Major Raverty says, in 589 H.? [A foot-note has,
“Major Raverty says that Muhammad Bakhtydr pre-
sented himself to the Sultdn at Ldhor, but the text has
12011111 (page 549).] It would, indeed, be a close computa-
tion if we allowed but five years for the above events, 2. <.
if we fixed the conquest of Bengal as having taken place in
504 H., or A.D. 1198.”

To this my reply is that “the text [page 549] says xot
one word about “Muhammad Bakhtyar’”’ presenting himself
before “ the Sultén at Lahor” [the Sultdx” in this in-
stance was a slave, continued a slave during his master’s
lifetime, and did not obtain his freedom and the title of
Sultan until 605 H.—only about fifteen years after this time!
See page 389 of Translation, and corresponding place in the
original]. The words in the Translation, and in the Text,
_ are, that “ Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar presented himself before
the Muster-Master at Dihli,’ and so, the probability is, that
Malik Kutb-ud-Din was at Lahor, as I have stated in note
6, page 550, on the authority of another writer, and Muham-
mad, $72 Bakht-yar, straightway went to Husam-ud-Din,
Ughul-Bak. —

If looked at in a different light, although the time seems
very short, it is not so utterly impossible for Muhammad,
bin Bakht-yar, to have waited on Kutb-ud-Din at Lahor, or
gone to Ughul-Bak, as the case may be, proceeded to
Awadh, have been sent to उषां and Bhagwat, have taken

1 Early in 589 H. : the second menth probably.
> It should have been stated above that his fiefs were c/ose to the frontier of
South Bihar, as in this Translation.

APPENDIX. XXV

Bihar which only required a party of 200 horsemen, in fact,
it may be said Muhammad dz” Bakht-yar took it alone,
and might have occupied him a couple of weeks, or even
say a month from his fiefs, a distance. of under 200 miles as
the crow flies, have gone to Dihlito Kutb-ud-Din in 589 H.,
or to Mahobah, as the case may be, and have invaded Ben-
gal the following year, for “the second year’ means the
following year—I quote my authors as I find them. That
in the following year after 589 H., he took Niidiah, agrees
with the statement of Shiam Parshad, whose work Mr.
Blochmann, of course, has referred to; but he appears not
to have noticed the statement of Minhaj-ud-Din at page
556 of this Translation [page to. of the printed text], that
when Muhammad ९ Bakht-yar returned from the presence
of Kutb-ud-Din, ¢ subdued Bihar, thus contradicting his
previous statement.

The only thing I can blame myself for in this matter is,
that I did not mention in a note, that the printed text,
which at one time is so utterly “untrustworthy,” and then so
trustworthy, contained the words “matters went on in this
way for one or two years” after the words “and ravaged
that territory,” at page 551 of this Translation. The reason
why I did not do so is, that, in all probability, I did not
look at the printed text here, or that it escaped my atten-
tion, otherwise I certainly should have done so: I think I
have noticed the printed text pretty often, when right as
well as when wrong. I had no object not to do so: I had
built up no theory or made statements anywhere else that
I wished to support. I might also have added that the two
MSS. on which that printed text is based—two of the
three worst of those collated—contain the same words, and
that other collated 4.5 9. had no such words.

I would, however, remark here that I did not profess to
translate the Calcutta Printed Text, but to translate the
work from MSS., and as advertised on the covers of the
Society’s publications.

Why the expression “some years before 601 H.” can
make it clear [ “Contributions,” page 135] that Niidiah
“must have been taken about 594 H. or 595 पत, 2.८. in A.D.
1198 or 1199,” any more than adonut 591, 2, 3 or even 596 or
7, 1 amat a loss to understand. But one thing, at least, is
very clear—that the year 599 H. for the conquest of Bengal,
even “as consistent with the best authorities,” is utterly im-
possible.

Another theory is then raised. Although it is clear to
Mr. Blochmann that Nidiah “ must have been taken in 594.
or 595 प्र.” the statement contained in the Taj-ul-Ma’asir

८

XXVi- । APPENDIX.

[Firtshtah, who merely copies from his immediate prede-
cessors, more particularly, is a very trustworthy authority
to quote], that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar waited on Kutb-ud-
Din at Mahobah, in 599 H.—a doubtful date in that work,
as before stated, which may be 597 H., and four or five
years after Mr. Blochmann says Bengal was conquered—
“involves no contradiction as far as chronology ts concerned.”
No, not in the least, even though our author, Minhaj-ud-
Din states, that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar waited on Kutb-..
ud-Din defore he surprised Nidiah! With that city Bengai
—or rather Lakhanawati—fell. There is no mention of any
fighting after; and so, if it is correct according to the Taj-
ul-Ma’asir, that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar only waited on
Kutb-ud-Din at Mahobah, in 599 H., not from AWADH
and BIHAR as incorrectly rendered, in ELLIOT’S version
(page 232, vol. ii.], but from ,ty 3j,si—the points are thus
given, according to the text of the Taj-ul-Maasir, I now
have before me—that city could only have been taken after
that time—s599 H. See also foot-note page 134, of the
“ Contributions,’ in which it is contended that .,.'—as
Minhaj-ud-Din writes it—cannot be correct, because the
Calcutta Text has ५11 |

The author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, like some others,
takes Muhammad, son of Bakht-y4ar, from the presence of
Mu’izz-ud-Din direct to Husdm-ud-Din, Ughal-Bak, and
says, that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, when subsequently he
came to Kutb-ud-Din’s presence, “was deputed to conquer
Lakhanawati.” The Tazkirat-ul-Mulik also takes Muham-
mad-i-Bakht-yar direct from Ghaznin to Ughal-Bak, and
states that he took Bihar before he went to Kutb-ud-Din.
See page xxiv of this.

“The time fixed upon by Mr. Thomas for the conquest
of Bengal is 599 H., that 15, four or five years after the time
assumed by Mr. Blochmann, while I have stated, according
to my author, that it was the year following 589 H., that is

` 590 H.—but three or four years before Mr. Blochmann's
chosen time. Mr. Thomas is only “a (2८८८८ too late:” mine
is “impossible as being too early.” Probably Mr. Blochmann
did not notice that at page 340 of the Ro. As. Fournal
vol. vi. for 1873, Mr. Thomas has again changed his opinion,
and says that “ the first occupation of Bengal by Muhammad
Bakhtyar KAziijf,” was “in 600 AH.” As Muhammad-i-
Bakht-yar is said to have held the territory of Lakhanawati
for twelve years, and was assassinated in 602 H., how is it
possible that the conquest of Bengal could have taken
place in either 599 H. or 600 H.?