Skip to main content

Full text of "Asiatic papers; papers read before the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society"

See other formats



Papers read before 





B.A. (Bombay University, 1877), Ph. D. (Honoris Causa, Heildelberg,^ 
1912), CLE. (1917), Fellow of the University of Bombay (1887), 
Dipl. Litteris et Artibus (Sweden, 1889), Sham-ul-Ulama (Govt, of 
India, 1893), Officier d'Academie (France, 1898), Officier de I'lnstruc- 
tion Publique (France, 1902), Honorary Correspondent of the 
Archaeological Department of the Government of India (1914), 
Campbell Medalist (B. B., Royal Asiatic Society, 1918), Fellow of 
the B. B., Royal Asiatic Society (1923), Honorary Member of th& 
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona (1923), Chevalier,. 
Legion d'Honneur (France, 1925), Officier, Croix de Merit 
(Hungary, 1925). 





^/I'fRSlTV C^ ■ 



The Patron, Vice-Presidents^ Fellows and Members 

of the 

Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 

as a Souvenir of 

The 125 Years' Anniversary of the 
Foundation of the Society 


As an humble mark of gratitude, for the intellec- 
tual pleasure, enjoyed in the company of 
its learned Members and its valuable books, 


Bi Bi, R. Asiatic Society; 



.) ■ 

In English. 

The Parsees at the Court of Akbar and Dastur Meherji Rana (1903). 

Aiyadgar-i-Zariran, Shatroiha-i- Airam, va Afdya va Sahigiya-Seistan,i.e., 
the Memoir of Zarir, Cities of Iran and the Wonders and Marvels of Seistan, 
(Pahlavi Translations, Part I, Texts in Gujerati character, with English and 
Gujerati translations and notes) 1899. 

Jamaspi (Pahlavi Translations, Part III, Pahlavi, Pazend and Persian 
Texts with translations) 1903. 

Asiatic Papers, Part I (1905). 

Asiatic Papers, Part II (1917). 

Asiatic Papers, Part III (1927). 

Anthropological Papers, Part I (1911). 

Anthropological Papers, Part II (1918). 

Anthroi)ological Papers, Part III (1924). 

Anthropological Papers, Part IV (1928). 

Masonic Papers (1913). 

Dante Papers (1914). 

Memorial Papers (1922). 

Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab (1916). 

Moral Extracts from Zoroastrian Books (1914). 

A Few Events in the Early History of the Parsees and their Dates ( 1905) 

A Glimpse into the work of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 
during the last 100 years from a Parsee point of view. (1905). 

A Glimpse into the History and Work of the Zorthoshti Dinni Khol 
Karnari Mandli (1922). 

Education among the Ancient Iranians ( 1905). 

Cama Oriental Institute Papers (1928), 

The Persian Farziat nameh and Kholaseh-i-Din of Dastur Darab 
Pahlan, Text and English version, with Notes ( 1924). 

Dastur Bahman Kekobad and the Kisseh-i-Sanjan (1917). 

Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees ( 1922). 

The Religious System of the Parsees ( 1885). 

A Catechism of the Zoroastrian Religion (1911). 

The Naojote Ceremony of the Parsees ( 1914). 

The Marriage Ceremony of the Parsees. 

The Funeral Ceremonies of the Parsees (1892). 

Marriage Customs among the Parsees, their comparison with similar 
Customs of other Nations ( 1900). 

Symbolism in the Marriage Ceremonies of different Nations (19Clt^. 

Les Impressions d'um Parsi sur la Ville de Paris. 

La Visite d'um Parsi a la Ville de Constantinople. 

La Ceremonie du Naojote parmi les Parsis. 




< cn'iJU* WVti (Meteorology), 1883. 
wHlit, ^IM aMd a^lci^i (Jamshed, Horn and Fire), 1884. 
a>i«^^rti «'Hl'i!r{l u^ ^*^i^ e^'iil, ^^iltA 5h^ aMi^R'il^* (The Social Life, 
Geography and Articles of Faith of Avesta times), 1887. 
a'l'tlvilrt wid i^l\^^ ( Anahita and Farohar), 1887. 
(h(h'^M'(1 ts'i^il aji?i=il ^hIqMI^* aMM^Vi:^* (ImmortaUty of the Soul), 1889. 
>i^^ aM^ wK\A M^V\\*i (Mithra and the Feast of Mithras), 1889. 
a>t«l^rtl'il ChUh 'llMlnl iW^l •( A Dictionary of Avestic Proper 
Names), 1892. 

^^mI (^H'il, QiR "^^^l (Iranian Essays, Part I), 1894. 
^^I'fl (^H'il, Qiiai <n1«l (Iranian Essays, Part II), 1900. 
^^I'll C^H^l, (HPl tl^ (Iranian Essays, Part HI), 1902. 
M.[n (3M^ "W^w (A Sermon on Death), 1893. 

*ilv^'l'">i' =»M^ •HlHlSiil^rii ^\9ie^\ yifl (Shah-nameh upto the reign of 
Minocheher), 1904. 

^llv^rtl^* 5Hd il^iwl (Shah-nameh and Firdausi), 1897. 
^^ciHHl'ii' (Rustam-nameh), 1917. 

5114 >^^l^?f Rh^I, c>tR Mi^l (Lectures before the Dnyan Prasarak Society, 
Part I ), 1898. 

^IH M^l^5f (hh^I, Qlloi oii;< (Lectures before the Dnyan Prasarak 
Society, Part II), 1906. 

^H M«R& Rh^I, Win 5(1^ (Lectures before the Dnyan Prasarak Society, 
Part III), 1917. 

^W M^Ri (q^^I, Qiiai Siiiii (Lectures before the Dnyan Prasarak 
Society, Part IV), 1920. 

•v^iil^nl Hh ^VhI X^\r\\ (Zoroastrian Catechism), 1909. 
*r\^\\'^\ H>i4'l ^'\\i\^ (History of the Zoroastrian ReUgion), 1910. 
•v^^ilJnl HM'll hm a>t^ ^Imani (Zoroastrian Rites and Ceremonies), 1911- 
w^?il^ra HH<il ilCrt ^< ^Jfl^l (Zoroastrian Morals and Virtues), 1912. 
^^lri<i ^^iH^l ^'fiv^l^, (Hin Hi^l (Ancient History of Iran, Part I). 
feT^ini* ^^i«i€l5Hl<i \l\ (Peshdadian Dynasty of Iran), 1914. 
^\\*\'^ ^>\\A^*K <^.\ (Kyanian Dynasty of Iran), 1915. 
w^^ii^rd Hh Ri*oi*Hl Qil'H^l ^< ^{^^, QtPl Mi$il (Lectures and Sermons 
on Zoroastrian Subjects, Part I), 1902. 

«;^2il^ct) Hh •«''"H*h1 (Hl^iail ^A ^[5^^, oiiai otl^;! (Lectures and Sermons 
on Zoroastrian Subjects, Part II), 1905. 

<.«il^rt'l HH ^*«H*'ca (HlHiail ^A «ii5i^, (Hioi ^1^. (Lectures and Sermons 
on Sj^oastrian Subjects, Part III), 1907. 


w^?ii:trt1 Hh ^V^ cHl'Hiali ^< =tiaM«l, (Hl^l ^i^l (Lcctures and Sermons on 
Zoroastrian Subjects, Part IV), 1909. 

wr^^ii^ftl hm. ^*«n'Hl (HlHiail =»i'i ^i5h«^, <H!>t Mi'*^! (Lectures and Sermons on 
Zoroastrian Subjects, Part V), 1912, 

w^^il^nl Hh ^*yi*Hl (Hl^ijil ^^ «tl3\«i, (Hl^l »il (Lectures and Sermons on 
Zoroastrian Subjects, Part VI), 1919. 

^»ti|?i (Bundehesh, Pahlavi Translations, Part II), 1901. 

bdH ^stMaMl, vk1$lil^V aXH H^l 'H.^^y a>l=l^ril aM^ Oil«l MR^l ^^^"^1^1 ^^^l- 
"Hiajl ^l^ (The Ancient Iranians according to Herodotus and Strabo, com- 
pared with the Avesta and other Parsi Books), 1904. 

^ilv^'ll'HMi ^l^rtHl, (HPlMjt?il (Episodes from the Shah- nameh. Parti), 1906. 

^U^'tl'Hl'ii il^ilHl, cHl'l ^IffH (Episodes from the Shah-nameh,PartII), 1907. 

^Ui'llHM'l ^'«<laHl (Heroines of the Shah-nan^eh), 1908. 

^irtl^'l'. Cl^^l I^C^l^^ rl oii5l4 ^ic-icfl, Ml**"*?, kR^ R^i\ )i-^<\i\^ a>lim^ riMlH 
(An Inquiry from Pahlavi, Pazend, Persia,n and other works on the subject 
of the Number of Days of the Farvardegan), 1908. 

•HR'l^'oiy^oi^i;^^! ^H^c-t (My Travels. A Series of 101 Letters), 1926- 

}i<H'S<i[ Ml^^l M^H ^IdlSiii (Bombay Parsee Charities). 


K. R. Cama Memorial Volume, 1900. 

The Pahlavi Madigan-i-Hazar Dadistan, 1901. 

K. R. Cama Masonic Jubilee Volume, 1907. 

Spiegel Memorial Volume, 1908. 

Sir J. J. Madressa Jubilee Volume, 1914. 





I. — A Christian Cross with a Pahlavi Inscription recently d2s« 

covered in the Travancore State 1-18 

II. — Eighteen Remarkable Things or Events of the Reign (593—628 

AC.) of Khusru Parviz (Chosroes II) of Persia 19 


Introduction . . . . 19 


The Fortunate 18 Years of Khusru' s R^ign 21 

Relations subsisting between Persia and Rome . . . . 22 


The Eighteen Remarkable Things or Events . . . . 25 

Tabari's List of some of the 18 Things . . . . . . 26 

1. A rich Golden Throne 27 

2. A rich CroAvn 29 

3. The Horse Shab-diz 29 

4. Shirin 29 

5. The Treasure known as Bid ward .... . . . . 30 

6. Khusru's Valuable Stable 31 

7. Possession of 1,000 Elephants 31 

8. Khusru's Maid- servants . . . . . . . . . • 32 

9. A stable of 12,000 camels 32 

10. A Towel of Malleable Gold 32 

11. Two distinguished Musicians at his Court . . .... 32 

12. A Rich Carpet 34 

Firdausi's Account of Carpet . . . . . . . . . . 35 

13. A Set of 9 Seals 36 

14. The Palace of Khusru at Madayan . . . . . . . . 38 

Gibbon and Malcolm on the Riches of Khusru . . . . 39 

15. The Palace of Khusru at Mashita 40 

16. Conquest of Egypt 41 

17. Conquest of Chalcedon . . . . . . . . . . 41 

18. Conquest of Jerusalem 42 

The Arab Prophet Prophecy in connection with the capture 

of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . • • • • 43 

in. — A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 46 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . 46 

Inscriptions on the Mosque of Shah Hamadan . . . . 46 

Shah Hamadan -V 46 

TheMasjid \ 47 



, The Outside Inscriptions of the Masjid 48 

'the Inside Inscription 49 

(a) The Names of God inserted on the Meherab . . . . 50 

(6) The Persian inscription proper over the Meherab . . 50 

The Inscription on the entrance to the Masjid . . . . 55 

The Inscription on the Masjid publishing a farman of 

Shah Jahan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

A list of amendations in Loewenthal's reading . . . . 60 

The Date of the Farman 64 

The Inscription on a Well at J a me Masjid . . . . . . 67 

An Inscription at Hazrat Bal . . . . . . . . 70 

The Shrine of Hazrat Bal 70 

An Inscription on the Ziyarat Gah of Shah Makhdum . . 72 
Shah Makhdum and a Rain ceremony connected with his 

name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 

IV. — ^The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel of 

India, ATraceof it in Firdousi's ShahNameh.. 75 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 

What is a Poison- Damsel . . . . . . . . . . 75 

The Story of Alexander and the Poison- Damsel . . . . 77 

The Source or Sources of the Pseudo-Aristotelean Work, 

the Secretum Secretorum . . . . . . . . . . 79 

The Pahlavi Origin of some Indian stories migrating to 

the West 80 

A Few points collected from various versions . . . . 83 

Firdousi's Version of the Story . . . . . . . . 86 

Points of Similarity between the Western Story and Fir- 
dousi's Story .... .... . . . . . . 91 

Magoudi's Reference to Four Rare Things, abd, among 

them to a Maiden . . . . . . 92 

V. — ^A Note on two Chalukya plates found at Dhamadachchha in the 
Naosari District (referred to in the " Progress Report of 
the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle," for 
the year ending Slst March 1918, Part II. A, Epigraphy 
pp. 35-36) 94 

VI.— Rustam Manock (1635-1721 A. C.) the Broker of the English 
East India Company, and the Persian Qisseh (History) of 
Rustam Manock. A Study 101 

|Introduction . . . . . . 101 




Substance of the Directors' Letter of 19th August 1723 to 
the President and Council of Bombay 

Substance of the Award of the Arbitrators 

Substance of the 3rd Document 

Substance of the 4th Document 

The Story of the Documents in brief. . 



The Advent of the English in India . . 

The first Factory at Surat in 1612 

English trade at Surat 
The East India Companies 

A few Dates about the Advent of Europeans, and among 
them, of the English to India 


The Author of the Qisseh 

The Mss. of the Qisseh 



Praise and charity of Rustam . . 

Relieving Parsees from the burden of the Jaziya 

Relieving the poor of other communities from the 
of Jaziyeh, c. 134 seq. 

Shivaji's sack Surat, c. 169 et seq. 

Shivaji and Afrasiab 

The Account of Rustam Manock's Charities 

Anquetil Du Perron's reference to Rustam's Garden 

Rustam and his Three Sons 

Rustam's first interview with the EngHsh. His appoint- 
ment as a broker. His finding a house for them 

The Visit of Rustam Manock in the Company of the English 
Factory to the Court of Aurangzeb 

Rustam's visit of Dandeh Raj pore, Damaun and Navsari 
and return to Surat . . 

Release of the ship of Osman Chalibi from the hands of the 
Portuguese, c. 432 seq. 

Historical Events treated in the Qisseh 






Birth and Family 141 

Signification of the word Seth 142 

His Family Stock .. .. 142 

Original ancestral home at Naosari 143 

His Navarhood 144 

Ruetam Manock, signatory of a communal document . . 144 
The Qisseh's Reference to Rustam Manock building wells 

for public use, c. 279 . . . . 145 

Rustompura in Surat founded by Rustam Manock . . 146 

His Building referred to in the Qisseh, as given in charity. . 146 

Rustam Manock' s name commemorated in the Dhup Nirang 1 46 

A Dutch Record of 1681 147 

Some European Writers, who refer to Rustam Manock or 

his sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 

Sir John Gayer and his Council of Surat on Rustam Manock 149 

Nicholas Waite on Rustam Manock . . . . . . 150 

St. J. H. Grose (1750) on Rustam Manock . . . . * . 150 

AnquetilDu Perron (1761) on Rustam Manock .. .. 151 

His family, c. 299 seq . . 152 

The visit of Nowroji, the son of Rustam Manock to England 

referred to in an old record of the Parsee Punchayet . . 153 

Some Important Events of Rustam' s Life with Dates . . 153 



The Jaziyeh imposed by Aurangzeb . . . . , . . . . 155 

Aurangzeb. His Belief, Bigotry and other Characteristics 156 

The Early Life of Aurangzeb . . . . . . . . . . 156 

His Religious Life . . , . . . . . . . . . 157 

His Bigotry 159 

His Dislike of Music and Wine . . . . . . . . 160 

Aurangzeb's Bigotry and the Iranian Magi's Naoroz *. . 161 

Aurangzeb's Contrarities in Life . . 161 

The Jaziyeh, The Date and the Rate of the Imposition 

of the Tax 162 

What is Jaziyeh. The humiliating way in which it had to 

be pai^, cc. 109-169 162 

Aurangzib re- imposed what Akbar had aboUshed . . . . 163 

Robert Orme on the Jaziyeh . . . . . . . . . . 163 

4 Its three classes for assessment . . . . , . . . 164 


Contents ^ xiii 


Shivaji's letter protesting against the Jaziyeh . . . . 164 
Jaziyeh alienated the Rajputs and helped the Mahrathas of 

Shivaji > 167 

Dr. John Fryer on the Jaziyeh over the Parsees . . . . 168 

Aurangzib inexorable in the collection of Jaziyeh . . . . 168 
Niccolas Manucci on Aurangzib's inexorableness about this 

tax 169 

Tod on the Jaziyeh 170 

Evidence from the EngUsh Factory Reports about the 

Persecution of Aurangzib .. .. .. .. .. 171 

The Date of the Imposition of the Jaziyeh . . . . . . 172 

Rate of the Tax 174 

Nusserwanji who was deputed to pay the Jaziyeh . . 176 

TheSad-dar on the Jaziyeh, cc. 162-165 176 

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 

The Jaziyeh in Persia . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 



The Account of the Qisseh about Shivaji's Sack of Surat. . 179 

Surat at the time of Shivaji's Sack . . . . . . . . 181 

Shivaji. His ancestry. Supposed Relationship with 

ancient Persia . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 

Shivaji, before the Sack of Surat . . . . . . . . 185 

Shivaji spoken of as ghani ( ic^ ) ^ *^® Qisseh . . 188 

Shivaji and the English . . . . . . . . . . 189 

Two Sacks of Surat by Shivaji . . . . . . . . 189 

The first Sack of Surat in 1664 190 

Shivaji's second Sack of Surat . . . . . . . . 193 

Which of the two Sacks is referred to by our Qisseh . . 196 

Shivaji's zulmaneh . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 

Where was Rustam Manock during the Sack ? . . . . 197 

The two officers of Shivaji who accompanied him in the 

sack, c. 190-1 199 

Shivaji and Afrasiab. Rustam Manock and Agreras ; 

cc. 219-250 202 

Shivaji's Sack and the loss of Parsee Communal documents 202 

A Note in an Old Dishapothi, about the death of a Parsee 

in the Sack of Shivaji . . . . ' 203 




Rustam Manock's first appointment as Broker . . . . 203- 





Facts gathered from the qisseh about the English 

Ambassador's Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 

, Qisseh' s account rather vague . . . . . . . . 205 

Rustam Manock, broker of the second Company, — the 
EngHsh East India Company — and not the first, the 
London East India Company . . . . . . . . 207 

Asad Khan in Aurangzib's Court during Rustam's Visit; 

cc. 383-385 . . . . . . 208 

The City where Rustam Manock saw Aurangzib . . . . 208 

The unnamed EngHshman of the Qisseh . . . . . . 209 

The arrival of the Farman later on . . . . . . . . 209 

Dates of Sir William Norris's visit to India as English 

Ambassador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 

Bruce' s Account of Rustam Manock' s visit of the Mogul 
Court in the Company of the English Ambassador 

AND affairs after THE RETURN OF SiR WiLLIAM 

NoRRis's Embassy . . 212 


Sir Nicholas Waite as the First President of the New 

Enghsh Company . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 

Sir William Norris as Ambassador . . . . . . . . 215 

Sir W. Norris's arrival at Surat . . . . . . . . 216 

Places touched by Rustam Manock on his way with the 

Ambassador to the Mogul Court . . 217 

The Date of the Visit of Rustam and the Ambassador to the 

Mogul Court. Error of three Parsi writers . . . . 217 

Reasons for the failure of his Embassy . . . . . . 218 

The Ambassador on his return journey . . . . . . 219 

Rustam's retention at the Mogul Court . . . . . . 219 

. The Ambassador on Return Voyage . . . . . . . . 220 

THOSE AFFAIRS . . . . . . 220 

Union of the two Companies . . . . . . . . , . 220 

Rustam's claim . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 

Sir John Gayer as Governor of Bombay 222 

Rustam Manock deputed by Sir N. Waite for a private visit 

to the Governor .... . . . . . . . . . . 224 

Sir John Gayer's confinements . . . . . . . . 224 

Sir N. Waite, acting Governor of Bombay. He appointed 

Rustam broker also for the «« United Trade " . . . . 225 


Friction between Sir N. Waite and Rustam . . . . . . 226 

Difference between Sir N. Waite and Mr. Proby. . . . . 227 

Unwise proceeding of Sir N. Waite . . . . . . , . * 127 

The Council of the United East India Company trans- 
ferring itself to the quarters rented by Rustam . . . . 228 

Sir N. Waite dismissed 229 

Dates about Rustam from Bruce's Annals . . . . . . 230 

Subjects referred to in Rustam Manock's Qisseh confirmed 

by Bruce's Annals . . . . . . 233 

The House secured by Rustam for the New English Com- 
pany at Surat . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 

The Tablet on the House at present . . . . . . . . 234 

Permission for Warehouses, etc. . . . . . . . . 235 

Rustam Manock's appeal to Aurangzeb for free ingress and 

egress for the English Factors . . 235 

Presents to the Officers of the Mogul Court . . . . 236 

The Farman or Order of Concessions . . . . . . 237 


Rustam Manock's Visit, during his Return Journey from 
THE Mogul Court, to (a) Danda Rajpuri, (6) Daman 

AND (c) Naosari . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 

(a) DANDEH-I RAJPUR, c.394 238 

Its Situation 239 

Khafi Khan on Danda Rajpuri and Janjira . . . . 240 

Fryer on Dandeh-i- Rajpuri . . 240 

The History of Dandeh Rajpur 240 

Shivaji and Dandeh-i- Raj pur . . . . . . . . 242 

TheSiddis 246 

Some Dates about the Siddi's Rule at Rajpuri, Dandeh 

and Janjira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 

Yaquba, c. 395 249 

The Object of the Visit 252 



Sir Streynsham Master on the Fire- temple at Naosari . . 254 

Hawkins on Naosari and its river 254 

Noshirwan, the host of Rustam, at Naosari . . . . 255 
Rustam Manock's Visit of Goa to get Osman Chalibee's ship 

released from the hands of the portuguese .. .. 256 

GoA 256 




The Event of a capture of a Ship by the Portuguese 

< Osman Chalibi . . . . 

Sidi Ali Chalibi, the founder of the Surat Chalibi . . 
What brought this Sidi Ali Chalibi to Bombay 
Sidi Ali Chalibi's short stay in India 
Chalibi, a Designation . . . . 

A later Chalibi ». 

Anquetil on the Chalibis 

A Chalibi of the west 

Captain Karan of Damaun . . . . . . • • • . 265 

Name of the Governors of Daman . . . . . . . . 265 

VijrilofGoa 266 

The Padri of Damaun 266 


Later Events 26T 

Reference in Biddulph's Pirates of Malabar, to Rustam's 

Commodore Mathews . . 
Rustam Manock in Sir Nicholas' Letters 
Estimate of Sir Nicholas Waite's Character 
The sons of Rustam Manock referred to in the Documents. 
Appendix . . . . ... 

(1) Dates of a few important Events connected with the 

Trade of the West with the East and connected 
with the History of India, before and during the 
times of Rustam Manock . . . . . . . . 21 s 

(2) A few dates about the English Factories in India . . 276 

(3) A few dates about Bemier, who visited India in the 

time of Aurangzeb , . . . . . . . . . 277 

(4) Dates relating to Aurangzeb . . . . . . . . 278 

(5) A few important dates about the Rule of the Siddi 

at Dandeh-i-Rajpuri and the adjoining country . . 279 


Qisseh-i- Rustam Manock (in Persian) 281 

Document No. 1 310 

Document No. 2 . . 312 

Document No. 3 317 

Document No. 4 318 

Photo of the Document No, 1 . . . , . . Facing Index 

Index 321 



In all, I have read 49 papers before my Bombay Brancji of 
the Royal Asiatic Society. Out of these, 44 have been p*ubhshed 
in separate Volumes as follows : — 

Asiatic Papers, Part I (1905) 16 

Asiatic Papers, Part II (1917) 13 

Asiatic Papers, Part III (1927) 8 

In a separate Volume, entitled " The Parsees at the 

Court of Akbar and Dastur Meherji Rana " (1903). 2 
In a separate volume, entitled " A Glimpse into the 
Work of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 
during the last 100 years from a Parsee point of 

view " (1905) 1 

In a separate Volume, entitled Dante Papers (1914).. 1 
In a separate Volume, entitled Anquetil Du Perron 

and Dastur Darab (1914) 2 

In my Volume, " Cama Oriental Institute Papers " 
(1928) 1 


Five more are published in this Volume. I also give in 
this Volume " A Note on two Chalukya Plates ", found at 
Dhamadachchha in the Naosari District, communicated at first 
to the Superintendent of the Archaeological Department of 
Western India, on 7th June 1919. 

I give my best thanks to my learned friend Mr. Bomonji 
Nusserwanji Dhabhar, M.A., for kindly preparing the Index of this 
Volume and for examining the proofs of the text of the Persian 

I joined the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, in 1888. 
I was elected a member of its Managing Committee in 1899 and 
its Vice-President in 1907. The Society honoured me with 
its Fellowship in 1924. This year it has raised me to its honoured 
chair of Presidentship. I note here with pleasure what I said on 
taking, for the first time, the Presidential chair in August 1929 : — 


■'^ I Lave presided a number of times at your meetings as your 
Vice-President, but this is the first time that I preside as your 
President. I beg to thank you heartily for calHng me to the chair, 
occupied, from time to time, by distinguished scholars of Bombay, 
some of whom were the Governors of the Bombay Presidency and 
Judges of the High Court. Thanks to God, I am honoured, ere this, 
by our and some foreign Governments in recognition of my humble 
literary work in various directions. But, I value very much the 
honour of being called to the chair of the Presidentship of the Fourth 
Oriental Conference at Allahabad, where, there were, hundreds of 
my Indian literary brethren, who gave an expression to their 
appreciation of my humble work. Here, in the present case, I 
value the honour, because it is gratifying to find one's work valued 
and appreciated by brethren, who have come into close contact, 
and who have worked, with me on the platform of this Society. 
It is a great pleasure to find one's work appreciated by one's peers, 
one's co-workers. I pray to God, that He may enable me to be 
worthy of your regards and confidence and to be worthy of the Chair 
honoured by my distinguished predecessors." 

It is a happy coincidence, that the year of my election to the 
Presidential chair is the year of the 125th Anniversary of the 
foundation of this Society. As a poor token of commemorating 
this event, and as an humble souvenir of my love and regard for 
this Society, I beg to associate this volume with the name of the 
Society and to dedicate it to its Patron, Vice-Presidents, Fellows 
and Members. This is the second time that I dedicate one of my 
works to this Society. My first dedication was in 1904 on the 
occasion of the celebration of the Society's Centenary, when I 
handed over a copy of the dedicated Volume, Asiatic Papers, Part I, 
into the hands of the then Patron, Lord Lamington. When I 
dedicate, after a quarter of a century, this volume — Asiatic Papers, 
Part IV — I simply repeat, with some verbal changes, what I said 
in the first dedicated volume : — "I am very greatly indebted 
to the Society, especially to its excellent Library — excellent 
in its treasures of old books. Were it not for these, I would 
not have been able to do even half of what I have done 
in tlAs volume. I look back with pleasure to the hours I have 
spenit*-in the rooms of this Society, in the company of some 


of its learned members, while reading my papers or hearing •those 
of others ; and I look back with greater pleasure, to the days, months 
and years, that I have passed at home in the company of its precious 
treasures. It is as an humble mark of gratitude for the intellectual 
pleasure thus enjoyed, that I beg to dedicate this little volume to 
the Patron, Vice-Presidents, Fellows and Members of this Societv." 

JiVANJi Jamshedji Modi, 
CoLABA, Bombay, President, 

17th November 1929. B. B. Royal Asiatic Society^ Bomhav 



(Read on 11th September 1924.) 

Mr. a. R. Raman ath Ayyar, Superintendent of Archaeology 
in the Travancore State, kindly sent me, for decipherment, with 
his letter, dated Trivandrum, 5th February 1924, " a photo-print 
of a Cross, which was recently discovered at Kadamattam in the 
Travancore State, having a Pahlavi inscription engraved on a 
canopying ribbon round it." Mr. Ayyar wrote: " It may be noted 
that the portion of the inscription on the left limb of the arch 
is identical with the shorter sentence found on the Crosses at St. 
Thomas's Mount and at Kottayam, while the remaining portion 
of the writing seems to consist of two short sentences separated 
by a + mark." The photo-print was not clear. So, I wrote on 
13th February and requested " that a full-size squeeze of it may be 
taken." Mr. Ayyar thereupon sent me, with his letter of 18th 
February, an estampage of the inscription, and then, later on, 
sent also a photograph of a better impression. He repeated in 
this second letter what was said in the first about the writing on 
the left limb of the Cross, that it was " identical with the shorter 
sentence engraved in the same portion of the three other Crosses 

2 ' ' < Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

at Kottayam and St. Thomas's Mount." He then added: '' The 
equal;armed Cross, cut out in low relief under the inscribed belt, 
is similar to that found at the Mount and that the sculpture seems 
to be of a slightly later date, but this question of age will have to 
be decided by Pahlavi scholars on a consideration of the script 
engraved in the record in question." 

As to the situation of the Church in which the Cross is found, 
the particular position in which it is found and the sculptural 
details of the Cross, I will quote here at some length Mr. Ayyar's 
remarks, which he has made in his official Report, and of which 
he has kindly sent me a copy with his letter of 22nd April 1924. 
He writes : 

" This Cross is found embedded in the south wall of the sanctum 
in the Jacobite-Syrian Church at Kadamattam, a village six miles to the 
west of Muvattupula, a taluk-centre in the Travancore State and about 
40 miles from Kottayam where the other two Crosses are found ; but my 
informants were unable to give me any interesting details as to whether 
this Cross had been preserved in the Church from a very long time or 
whether it was brought down from some other place and fixed up in 
its present position. The Church which is picturesquely situated on 
the top of a small hillock does not claim any antiquity, epigraphical or 
architectural, except for the presence of this Persian Cross. This 
new Cross resembles the bigger Kottayam Cross in its sculptural 
details, i.e., it is an equal-armed Greek type with fleur-de-lis extremi- 
ties, and it stands on a pedestal of three steps. It is flanked by two 
detached pilasters of the same type as that of the other two examples 
and on the capitals of these are also found two couchant makaras or 
fish-monsters facing each other and supporting with their gaping mouths 
a semi-circular belt [prabhdvali) arching above the Cross. The outer 
lim of this arch is represented as ornamentally curving out in two hooks 
on either, side of some central flower-and-bead cluster. In the place 
occupied by a down- turned dove with outspread wings (symbolizing 
the Holy Ghost ) and shown as pecking at the top of the upper 
limb of the Cross, we have in the Kadamattam example a somewhat 
curiously shaped object which resembles a crown or a bishop's mitre, 
or worse still a shuttle-cock ; but as these have no symbolical significance, 
we have to take this object to be an extremely crude representation 
of a dove, whose extended wings have the outlines of two inturned rose 
leaves, whose body and tail are inartistically sculptured as five straight 
feather-tipped strands, and whose head and beak (looking like 
a turnip) are hardly recognizable as parts of a bird's anatomy. On 
either side of the lower limb of the Cross are the same floral device 

. A Christian Cross with a Pahlavi Inscnpfion 3 

branching out upwards in conventional curls and a semi-circular triple 
band envelops the steps in a rainbow arch. Five oblong niche- like 
depressions have been crudely picked out for the sake of ornapienl on the 
plain pedestal below this cavalry of three steps and some later (Romish ?) 
enthusiast has conveniently managed to shape them into the abbreviated 
formula I. N. R. I. (Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum). The portion con- 
taining the Pahlavi writing is a narrow ribbon of stone which springs at 
either extremity of this base and going up straight to a height of about 
15" curves round in a serai-circular arch of 9" radius enveloping the top 
of the Cross and its halo-circle. 

" The inscription on this band seems to consist of three short 
sentences separated by two + (cross) marks. Of these the portion run- 
ning down the left limb from one such mark at the top corner appeare to 
be identical with the shorter sentence found in the same position in all 
the other three Crosses, both at Kottayam and the Mount ; but the 
remaining portion appears to be different and to consist of two sentences 
marked off by the other dividing + symbol. Sculpturally considered, 
this crudely wrought Cross at Kadamattam seems to be a later copy 
of the one at St. Thomas's Mount ; but an authoritative opinion as to 
its probable age can be pronounced only by Pahlavi scholars, after a 
careful consideration of the script employed in the present record." 

It appears from the Indian Antiquary^ of December 1923, 
that the slab of the Cross was discovered at the close of the year 

1921 by Mr. T. K' Joseph. The discoverer writes (op. cit. p. 355) : 

"As the epigraph was in Pahlavi and not in Vatteluttu, I forwarded 
a copy of it to the Pahlavi scholar Dr. Cassartelli. The inscription 
seems to be a replica of the one on the other two similar slabs. Rev. Fr. 
H. Hosten, S.J., of Darjeeling, in a letter to me dated 27th May 1922, 
says : ' I have compared it with the Mylapore (Greek Mount) inscription, 
and have little doubt but yours is a replica of it.' " 

Kev. Father Hosten has referred to this new Cross in his 
article entitled "Christian Archaeology in Malabar" in the December 

1922 issue of the Catholic Herald of India. He says there that 
" the art displayed by the Katamarram Cross. . . may help to 
determine certain almost obliterated designs of the Mylapore 
Cross, and this may lead to a very distinct advance in the inter- 
pretation of the tradition of the St. Thomas Christians." Rev. 
Father Hosten has described again, in detail, from photographs 
sent to him recently by the Archaeological Department of Tra- 

1 Vol. 52, pp. 355-6. 

I ' ' Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

vancoxe, the design of the Crosses and the symbolism onthem.^ 
In his jjescription, he speaks of the pillars of the St. Thomas Mount 
as "appearing to be more primitive, more Persepolitan(?), than 
those of the Kottayam Cross, No. 1." 

Mr. Joseph does not tell us how Dr. Cassartelli, the learned 
Bishop of Sanford, has read and translated the inscription. As 
far as I know, his transliteration and translation are not published. 

From Dr. Burnell's article^ which is referred to later on, and 
other subsequent writings on the subject we gather that the 
Mount Church Cross was discovered by the Portuguese when they 
were digging in 1547 the foundation for a new Church, the Mount 
Church on its present site. They came across the ruins of old 
Christian buildings, and in these ruins, they found the Cross with 
the Pahlavi inscription. This they installed in their new CTiurch 
where it now stands. According to Dr. Burnell, miracles were 
believed to have been worked with this Cross. This Cross was 
soon unhesitatingly identified with the one which the Apostle 
St. Thomas is said to have embraced while on the point of death 
and its miraculous virtues specially obtained great fame.*^ 


In reply to Mr. Ayyar's inquiries, I had submitted my reading 
and rendering of the inscription to him with my letter of 15th 
April. After I announced my paper to our Society, I learnt that 
my translation, sent to Mr. Ayyar, was published in the June 
1924 issue of the Academy by Mr. T. K. Joseph, the discoverer 
of the inscription, to whom it seems to have been passed on by 
Mr. Ayyar. In this paper, I beg to treat the whole subject at 
some length. If I do not mistake, this is the first attempt at 
decipherment in relation to this Cross. 

Decipher Tfient of the Inscriptions on the previous Crosses. — 
Mr. Ayyar and Mr. Joseph have referred to three other Crosses of 
the kind previously discovered and as Mr. Ayyar has spoken of a 
short sentence of the recently discovered Cross as being identical 

- Indian Athceneum, August 1923, p. 67 f. 

3 Indian Antiquary, November 1874, pp. 308-16. 

4 T. K. Joseph, Indian Antiquary, December 1923, .p. 355. 

^ A Christian Cross with .a Pahlavi Inscription ,0 

with a similar sentence in the previously discovered Crosi^eh, 1 will, 
at first, speak briefly of these Crosses, their imicriptions, and the 
attempts made to decipher them. If I do not mistake, this* is the 
first time that the subject of the Crosses inscribed in Pahlavi limi 
been brought before our Society, and so, I think, a brief account 
will be of some use to our local students. 

(a) The Crosses with Pahlavi inscriptions were first disco- 
vered in 1873 by Dr. A. C.^ Burnell, who drew the attention of scho- 
lars to them in a letter, dated " Mangalore, South Canara, Madras 
Presidency, May 12th, 1873," addressed to the London Academy 
and published in its issue of 14th June 1873 (pp. 237-8). In that 
letter, he expressed an expectation, that " the old S}Tian 
Clmrches (at Niranam, Kayariikullam, etc.) will no doubt furnish 
other copies " (p. 238). The recently discovered inscription under 
examination has fulfilled Dr. Burnell's expectation, and we should 
not be surprised if some more Crosses with inscriptions are dis- 
covered in that part of the country. In the same letter. Dr. Bur- 
nell had promised to get the inscription lithographed and send 
copies of the lithograph to Pahlavi Scholars and he had done so. 

Dr. Burnell's interest in the discovery of the Pahla\a inscrip- 
tions was from the point of view of supporting Prof. Weber, who 
had, in his essay on the Ramayana " suspected Greek influences 
in the composition of that poem" (op. cit. p. 237). He said: 
" It will now, in consequence of this discovery, be possible to 
prove that much in the modern philosophical schools of India 
comes from some form of Christianity derived from Persia ; and 
this fact at once explains also the origin of the modern Vedanta 
sects in Southern India exclusively." Dr. Burnell added: '* The 
number of these tablets proves that there must have been [Chris- 
tian] communities in several places, and those large enough to have 
Churches, both on the S. W. and S. E. coasts of India." The 
early Christian settlers from Persia were taken to be Manichsens, 
and Dr. Burnell thought, that Manigramam, the name of the set- 
tlement of the Persian Christians, came from Man!, the founder 
of Manichaeism. Safikaracarya, Ramanuja and Madhvacar}'a, 
who founded the modern schools of Vedanta, were all supposed 

6 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

to have come under the influence of Christian settlers whose set- 
tlements were not far from the towns of these founders. 

(h) 'Dr. Burnell then published a pamphlet, entitled " On 
some Pahlavi Inscriptions in South India." It was printed, in 
1873, at the Mission Press in Mangalore. 

(c) This pamphlet was reprinted with additions by Dr. 
Burnell in the Indian Antiquary for November 1874 (vol. 3, pp* 
308-16), under the heading " On some Pahlavi Inscriptions in 
South India," with four figures. These a^-^: (1) The Mount 
Cross, (2 & 3) the Sassanian and Chaldeo-Pahlavi attestation to 
a grant, and (4) the Tablet at Kottayam. 

(d) On the appearance of Dr. Burnell's pamphlet, Dr. Mar- 
tin Haug, attempted a reading and translation in the Beilage zur 
allgemeinen Zeitung (No. 29) of 29th January 1874. Haug's 
reading and rendering are given by Burnell in the reprint of his 
pamphlet in the Indian Antiquary for November 1874 (p. 314). 

(e) Then Dr. E. W. West gave his reading and rendering 
while reviewing Dr. Burnell's above pamphlet, in the Academy 
of 24th January 1874 (vol. 5, pp. 96-7). He gave two readings 
and two translations, varying . according to the position of the 
lines, i. e., when one read the upper and longer line first or the 
shorter line first. Again for the short line, he submitted an alter- 
native reading and rendering. 

(/) Thereafter, in 1892, Prof. Harlez gave his reading and 
translation, before the Eighth International Congress of Orienta- 
lists, which met at Paris {Proceedings of the Eighth International 
Congress of Orientalists, Paris, 1892).^ 

{g) Then, in the Epigraphia Indica of 1896-97 (vol. 4, pp. 
174-6), Dr. West gave an amended reading and translation.^ 
Herein he read the long line first. 

5 Vide Dastur Darabji Peshotan Sanjana's paper in the Sir Jamsetjee 
Jejeehhoy Madressa Jubilee Voluine. 

6 In a brief paper, read before the Jarthoshti Din ni khol kamari 
Mandli, on 14th November 1896, I drew the attention of our Parsee scholars 
to Dr. West's above-mentioned article in the Epigraphia Indica and gave 
a brief account of the Pahlavi inscriptions in Madras. Vide my Gujarati 
Iranian essays (tfRl'd R^^l), part III, pp. 193-96 ; also my Glimpse 
into the Work of the Jarthoshti Din ni khol kamari Mandli, p. 70. 

A Christian Cross with a Pahlavi Inscri^tien 7 

(h) Then Shams-ul-ulama Dastur Darab Peshotan San j ana 
gave four alternative readings and renderings in his paper entitled 
" The Pahlavi Inscription on the Mount Cross in Southera India".'^ 


Doubt as to the Script being Pahlavi. — Before I proceed further, 
I will say here a few words on the subject of the doubt as 
to whether the pcript of these inscriptions is Pahlavi. Mr. Ayyar 
in his letter of 16th May 1924 writes: 

" While all Persian scholars, though they may have certain 
disagreements in its interpretation, are however decided that the script 
employed in the record is Pahlavi, it is passing strange that Dr.Bern- 
ard of St. Thomas of the Mannanum (Travancore) Carmellite Seminary 
should, in his History of the St. Thomas Christians (in Malayalam), 
give a curious preference to the interpretation which certain Brahmans 
of Mylapore are supposed to have ofiFered to the Portuguese in the 16th 
century and that Fr. Burthey of Trichinopoly, more interested in theo- 
logy than archaeology, should have declared the script and language of 
the record to be Aramaic and Tamil respectively." 
Thus, giving an expression to his surprise, Mr. Ayyar has 
sent me "two prints of the Kottayam Crosses wherein," he says, 
he has "successfully combined separate photos of the Crosses 
and the estampages of their inscriptions so as to yield clear and 
complete pictures." On carefully looking at these two prints, 
and on looking to the facsimiles given in other writings as 
referred to in this paper, and on looking to the photo-liths of the 
inscriptions on the Crosses, students of Pahlavi would have no 
doubt about the script being Pahlavi. 

I will refer here in passing to a well-nigh similar case, where- 
in a script, which was Pahlavi as determined later on by Pahlavi 
scholars,^ was not recognised as Pahlavi even by a scholar like 
Anquetil Du Perron. It is the case of the Pahlavi inscriptions 
in the Kanheri caves in the neighbourhood of Borivli. It was in 
1861, that the late Dr. Bhau Daji had first drawn attention to 

7 The Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Volume, edited by 
Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, 1914, pp. 192-8. 

8 See Jarthoshti Abhyas, No. II, p. 98a ; No. Ill, p. U6a, 146-63 
and No. IV, pp. 209-17. 

8 * * Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

them, and it was in 1866 that Dr. (then Mr.) E. W. West sub- 
mitt(y3 a Note, dated 5th May 1866, to this Society, drawing spe- 
cial attention of scholars to the Pahlavi inscription. » Anquetil 
Du Perron saw the inscription in 1761, but he did not recognize 
the script as Pahlavi. He speaks of their being in Mogous or 
Mougous characters. In one place, he speaks of the characters as 
Mongous. He says:^^ "Deux inscriptions, qui paroissent recentes, 
chacune de douze lignes perpendiculaires ; gravees pen profonde- 
ment, & en caracteres Mougous, sur deux pilliers qui font partie 
des murs ; I'une haute d'un pied, I'autre large & haute de 
quinze pouces."^^ 

In another place,^^ he speaks of the script as Mongous (carac- 
teres Mongous). . In the Index^^ again, he gives it as Mongous. We 
see from this, that even a scholar like Anquetil who knew Pahlavi 
though not much, could not recognize a Pahlavi inscription and 
took the characters to be Mogous or Mongous. " I think," as I 
have said elsewhere, " that the word Mougous is correct and is 
the same as the Parsee word Magav or Magous, the Greek Magi. 
It seems that he was properly informed by his guide or guides 
at the caves, that the characters were those of the Magous or 
Magis, but he did not properly understand the word, to take it 
for the characters of the Persian Magi orMobads."^^ It seems 
that, just as in the case of the Malabar Coast Crosses, so in the 
case of the Kanheri and other caves in the neighbourhood, the 
Brahmins in charge of the places of worship had strange views. 
They seem to have told Anquetil that they were the works of 
Alexander the Great ! 

9 Vide my paper on Anquetil Du Perron read before this Society on 
16th December 1915 ; and my Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darah, p. 49. 

10 Zend-Avesta, vol. I, p. 404. 

11 Translation : "Two inscriptions, which appear recent, each of 12 per- 
pendicular lines, inscribed less deep, and in character Mougous, over two 
pillars which form a part of the walls ; one, one foot high and the other 15 
inches broad and high." 

12 Zend-Avesta, vol. I, p. 395. 13 Ibid. vol. II, p. 732. 

1* Vide my paper on Anquetil Du Perron. Vide my book Anquetil Du 
Perron and Dastur Darah, p. 50. 

4 Christian Cross ivilh a Pahlavi InscriptiSn 9 


Before I give my decipherment, I beg to refer to the diflGTcult^- 
of reading such inscriptions. The decipherment of Pahla\ 
inscriptions is often difficult. The difficulty is due to variou 
cjiuses : 

(a) Firstly, as many of the letters of the Pahlavi alphabet 
admit of more than one reading, there is, at times, a difference of 
opinion among scholars about the reading of some words even in 
the manuscripts, (h) This difficulty is added to in the case of 
inscriptions, wherein, besides the difficulty of engraving, there is 
that of doing so within a limited space, (c) Then, there is a 
further difficulty, when the inscription is to be done in an arched 
space, (d) Lastly, the artists, who engrave such inscriptions, ar^ 
not literary men. They work mechanically from copies or tracings 
submitted to them and any error in the form of letters adds to the 
difficulty of deciphering them. 

The difficulty about the decipherment of a Pahlavi inscription 
like that under notice is well illustrated by the attempts of scholars 
in reading the Pahlavi inscription on the above-mentioned Christian 
Cross in the Church of Mount St. Thomas at Madras, the like of 
which is also found on two Crosses at Kottayam. Scholars differ, 
not only here and there, but in most of their readings. Dr. West 
has given two readings, the second being an emendation of the first. 
Even in his first reading, he has given an alternative reading of 
the short sentence. Dastur Darabji P. Sanjana has given four 
alternative readings and translations. These facts show how 
difficult it is to decipher a Pahlavi inscription on a Christian 
Cross of the kind which is under examination in this paper. What 
Dr. West has very properly said of the Mount St. Thomas Cross 
is true of this also, that " there is little chance of any two Pahlavi 
scholars agreeing about its interpretation." In another place, he 
says : '' It is exceedingly easy to point out such defects, but it is 
not so easy to suggest any really satisfactory reading of the whole 
inscriptioEf, as only the three words denman, tnadam and hokht are 
indisputable."^^ Again, add to the difficulty inherent in the read- 

1^ Academy, 24Th January 1874, p. 97. 

10 ' . Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

ing itself, that of obtaining really good estampages and photos. 
For example, take the case of the inscription of the previously dis- 

We have before us, among several others latterly given by 
other writers, three following impressions of the Mount St. Thomas 
Cross inscription: (1) The one given by Dr. Burnell ; (2) the one 
given by Dr. West in the Epigraphia Indica ; and (3) the one given 
by Dr.Harlez in the Keport of the 1892 Oriental Congress of Paris.^^ 

Strange to say, we find slight differences in all these three 
impressions or copies in the matter of the above-mentioned short 
sentence. By carefully observing this short sentence in all the 
three Crosses, one will notice that, though apparently identical, 
there is a difference here and there. Dr. West had to wait for some 
time before he gave his amended reading from more than one good 
copy of the photo-litho. 

Rev. Hosten says : " If I were a Sassanian-Pahlavi scholar, 
I would not be satisfied with deciphering from photographs. I 
would insist on good estampages. . . only a rubbing, therefore, 
could bring out the exact details of the lettering with every jot and 
tittle. "^^ With that view, I had asked for an estampage of this 
newly discovered Cross, and I thank Mr. Ayyar for kindly sending 
it to me. I am not sure whether it is a good estampage. But even 
with this estampage and the second good photo-print kindly sent 
to me by Mr. Ayyar, the task of decipherment has not been easy. 
In reply to Mr. Ayyar's inquiries, I submitted my reading and 
translation with my letter of 15th April 1924. I repeat here what 
I wrote to him: " One cannot claim any finality in such reading. 
When you see, that in the case of the previous inscription, the read- 
ings of five scholars — two of whom have submitted a number of 
alternate readings and translations — ^have differed, you must expect 
differences between my attempt and that of others who may follow." 

With these few preliminary observations suggested by the 
decipherment of the inscription on the known Crosses, I beg to 
submit my reading and translation of the Pahlavi inscription on 
the Kadamattam Cross. 

16 As reproduced by Dastur Darabji in his article in the Madressa 
Jubilee Volume. 

17 Indian Athceneum, August 1923, p. 71. 



^ Christian Cross with a Pahlavi Inscrijtthn 11 



(1) Li zibah vai min Ninav val denman 

(2) Napisht Mar Shapur 

(3) Li (mun) ahrob Mashiah avakhshahi min khar bokht. 


(1) I, a beautiful bird from Nineveh, (have come) to this 

(2) Written (by) Mar Shapur. 

(3) Holy Messiah, the forgiver, freed me from thorn (i. e. 

I will now submit a few notes to explain my reading of certain 
words, I will at first speak of the first line on the right of the arch 
which is to be read from above to down below. Dr. West says of 
the similarly situated short line of the previous Crosses that " the 
shorter^^ line is much more uncertain, and there is little chance 
of any two Pahlavi scholars agreeing about its interpretation. "^^ 
I think, this may turn out to be true of this line also. 

(a) I have read what Dr. West has called a dash in the pre- 
vious Cross as the word li, i.e. ' L' In connection with this word, 
or dash, as he calls it, as seen in the previous inscriptions. Dr. West 
says: "The Inscription is really divided into two unequal por- 
tions by a small cross and dash. This dash is developed at 

18 The Inscription consists of three parts separated by a -f cross-like 
mark. I have begun my reading from right hand side, reading the first 
line down from above. In the second two lines I have gone up from the 
right and have come down below to the left. 

19 The previous inscriptions have only two lines, one long and another 

20 Academy, 24th June 1874, p. 97. 

12 c ,. Jivanji JamsJiedji Modi 

Kottayam into a shape like an hour-glass, or the cipher 8, laid upon 
its side ; but this can hardly be read as any combination of Pahlavi 
letters,*and is probably ornamental. "^^ I think, it is not an orna- 
mental dash, but is the word li, i.e. ' I.' Our present inscription 
has, instead of two, three sentences separated by a cross. There is 
a similar sign (or dash as said by Dr. West) between the second and 
the third line, though not exactly the same. In the commencement 
of the third sentence, it is more like that on the Kottayam Cross, 
i.e. of " a shape like an hour-glass." 

(b) I read the second word as zibah, Pers. l^j j ' beautiful.' 
One may object, and properly object, that the first letter of 
the word is not j, (z) as it ought to be written in the beginning 
of the word. But, I think that it is perhaps the difficulty of 
engraving, in a limited space, the long shape of z as it should be 
written in the beginning of a word, that may have led the engraver 
to use the form of the letter as it occurs in the middle of a word. 
But the letter may be read as d, if not z, without mu:ch difficulty 
and objection. In that case, it may be read as dihah l*^ d, i.e. 
'gold-tissued,' hence ' beautiful.' However, I admit, that I am 
not strong, nay, I am rather doubtful, in the reading of this word ; 
but, I think, it is an adjectival word, qualifying, and in praise of, 
the next word. 

(c) I read the next word as vaya ( Av. jjjiajLJsy, Skt. vi, Lat. avis 
^bird') and I take it that the word refers to the bird, 'dove,' in the 
design of the Cross. We see the bird very clearly in the design of 
the Mount Cross.22 Dr. Burnell thus quotes Lucena ("a safe autho- 
rity on the Portuguese translations in India of that time") as speak- 
ing about the Mount St. Thomas Cross which was discovered " in 
digging for the foundations of a hermitage amid the ruins which 
marked the martyrdom of the apostle St. Thomas. On one face 
of this slab was a Cross in relief, with a bird like a dove over it 

21 Epigraphia Indica, vol. 4, p. 175. 

22 See Indian Antiquary, November 1874, p. 308 for the design. 
Also for the design, see the Sir J. J. Madressa Jubilee Volume, p. 196 
and the estampage of the recently discovered Cross. And finally the Book 
of Ser Marco Polo, translated by Yule, third edition revised by Cordier 
(1903) vol. 2, p. 353. 

A Christian Cross with a Pahlavt Inscripti&N 13 

with its wings expanded as the Holy Ghost is usually lepit^.^. in. -i 
when descending on our Lord at his baptism or our Lady at her 

(d) Ninav 1 1 1. One may object to the word being Ninav, 
i.e. Nineveh. Some horizontal slips undet I give the letter the look 

of h J. But the form of the word as seen in the previous Cross 

helps the reading. The form, as given by Harlez and reproduced by 
Dastur Darabji,is clear as 1 1 1.^^ Dastur Darabji has printed it as II 
though he has read it as van. With reference to this name, 
Ninav, I would refer my readers to the account of Dr. Burnell in his 
paper, first published in the Academy of 1874 (vol. Ill), referred to 
above. It appears from that account that the early Christians 
who came to India were those from Babylon, and the adjoining 
countries. So, the mention of Ninav (Nineveh) refers to that part 

I may say here that one may possibly object to my reading 
the word as Ninav in the recently discovered Cross. But the word 
is clear in the similar part of the inscription in the previously dis- 
covered Crosses. The flourish of the hand by the artist on the 
Cross under examination has hot made the word clear in the pre- 
sent case. The word is written as I II (something like 1 1 1 , i.e., hun- 
dred and eleven in Arabic figures) and it occurs as Ninav for Nine- 
veh in the.Pahlavi treatise of Shatroiha-i Airan^^. 

(e) Now we come to the middle line, which is the shortest. 
There, I read the first word as najnsht, i.e., ' written' and the next 
word as Mar Shapur. This part of the inscription is mutilated. 
But I think that the name is that of the ' writer,' i.e.. the person 
who got the stone inscribed with the Cross and the inscription. It 
is, as it were, his votive offering, and so, as may be naturally expect- 
ed, he gets his name put down in the inscription. Mar Shapur 
referred to may be the Mar Shapur mentioned by Burnell as one 
of the early Christian emigrants. 

-^ Indian Antiquary, November 1874, p. 313. 
2^ See Sir Jamshedji Jejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Volume, p. 196. 
25 Vide my Pahlavi Translation, part I, Aiyadgar-i Zariran, Shatroiha-i 
, Airan va Afdya va Sahigihi Seistan, p. 115. 

14 r Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

(/) Coming to the third line, I have referred above to the 
reading of this first word. The second word, I read as ahroh (ahloh), 
i.e., 'pi6us, holy.' 

{g) Then the next two words Mashiah avakhshahi are 
well nigh the same as in, the previously discovered inscription of 
Mount St. Thomas. 

(h) Then the last two words also seem to be the same as 
those of the previous inscription and I think they may be read as 
Dr. West had read them. 

On receiving my reading and translation, Mr. Ayyar wrote in 
his letter of 22nd April : 

" The reference to the ' bird ' in the Kadamattam Cross as 
noted by you is quite in keeping with the pictured detail and is 
important, inasmuch as it helps to settle the doubtful nature of 
the emblem figured on the older Kottayam Cross which it 
resembles and which latter had led Fr. H. Hosten of Darjeeling 
into some learned speculations in the Indian Athenceum for August 
1923. The mention of Mar Shapur in the record is valuable in more 
aspects than one ; and as in all likelihood, he may be identical with 
Maruvan Sapir Iso of the Kottayam copper-plate charter of the time 
of the Cera king Sthanu-ravi {ca. A. T>. 880-900), this cross may be taken 
to furnish an important dated landmark more reliable than the mere 
approximations of palaeography, however carefully balanced they may 
have been. (See also Travancore Archaeological Series No. II, pp. 
60 et seq.y-^Q 

I am glad to learn from what is said above by Mr. Ayyar 
from archaeological and historical points of view, that my reading 
of this new Cross has interested him and has been found important 
and " valuable in more aspects than one." 

Who were the Malabar Coast Christians ? — Now the question 
is: Who were the Christians who put up Crosses with Pahlavi 
inscriptions in the Churches ? It is rather diflftcult to say posi- 
tively, who they were. There are various traditions about the 
first advent of the Christians to the shores of India. 

There is the tradition, noted by Marco Polo, who has, in his 
book of travels, said that Malabar was the place where St. Thomas, 

26 Mr. Ayyar's reference is to the article, entitled " Three Inscriptions 
of Sthanu Ravi," in vol. 2, part 1, pp. 60-86 of the said series. 

A Christian Cross with a Pahlavi InscripiioH 15 

one of the twelve apostles of Christ, lies buried.^^ There is a differ- 
ence of opinion as to whether the St. Thomas, who is associated 
with the early Christians of India, was the apostle himself or a later 
saint. Some even connected at one time the Pahlavi Cross in 
the Church of St. Thome with the Apostle St. Thomas. We read 
on this point : 

'* In repairing a hermitage which here existed, in 1547, the workmen 
came upon a stone slab with a Cross and inscription carved upon it. 
The story speedily developed itself that this was the Cross which had 
been embraced by the dying Apostle, and its miraculous virtues soon 
obtained great fame. It was eventually set up over an altar in the 
church of Madonna, which w^as afterwards erected on the Great Mount, 
and there it still exists. A Brahman imposter professed to give an 
interpretation of the inscription as relating to the death of St. Thomas, 
etc., and this was long accepted."28 

Anquetil Du Perron on the Malabar Coast Christians. — Anque- 
til Du Perron, in his Zend-Avesta, in his account of his visit to 
Cochin on 31st December 1757, speaks at some length on the 
subject of the Christians.^^ I quote here from my paper on 
Anquetil Du Perron read before this Society : ^^ 

" Anquetil's description of Cochin shows that the city and the 
surrounding district formed a great centre of trade at that time. Some 
of the Europeans who lived there were literary persons. There were 
also many learned Christian priests. There were a number of Christian 
Churches built by the several European communities that traded with 
India. Anquetil visited Veraple, which was the seat of the Apostolic 
Vicar of the Malabar Coast. His description of the Christians of this 
district will be found somewhat interesting to the students of the history 
of the spread of Christianity here. Even M. Florent, a head priest of the 
district, could not tell him how old was the Christian population there. 
At the time of Anquetil's visit, there were about 200,000 Christians, 
of whom 50,000 were Roman Catholics, 100,000 Syrian Malabari Catho- 
lics, 50,000 other Syrian Christians (Syro-Malabares Scliismatiques). 
The Latin or Roman Catholics again were divided into three classes : 
1. Christians of St. Thomas. 2. The Topas, born of Portuguese 
fathers and Indian mothers, either by legal marriage or concubinage, who 

-7 Vide the third edition of the translation of Yule, revised by Cordier 
(1903), p. 353. 

-8 Third ed. of Marco Polo by Cordier. Notes, p. 358. 

^9 Tome I, partie 1. 

30 " Anquetil Du Perron of Paris. India as seen by him ", pp. 19-20. 

16 r ^, Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

dressed as Europeans. Most of the domestic servants of the Dutch, the 
English and French in India belonged to this class. 8. . The Mounduk- 
acens who were recently converted Malabari Christians and who dressed 
as na'tives of the land, and the Kouloukarens who were fishers and 

The Time of the Inscription. — There remains the question as to 
the time when these Crosses were put up and this question is con- 
nected with the question as to who those Christians were who put 
them up. The very fact of the Crosses having Pahlavi inscriptions 
of the types we see, shows that, even if there had been some early 
settlements of Christians on the Malabar Coast at the time of the 
advent of St. Thomas the Apostle, these Crosses are not their 
offerings. They belong to some later times. Dr. West says on 
this subject: 

" Regarding the date of the Pahlavi Inscriptions nothing very 
definite can be ascertained from the forms of the letters . , . . All 
the peculiarities can be found in the Kanheri Pahlavi inscriptions of 
10th October and 24th November 1009, and 30th October 1021 ; and some 
of them in the Pahlavi signatures of witnesses on a copper-plate grant 
to the Syrian Church in Southern India which has been attributed 
to the ninth century. "31 
Dr. Burnell wrote: 

" The characters and language are nearly those of the books, but 
are not by any means of the earliest period. If one may judge by the 
legends on coins, the dates of which are known, the earliest of these 
inscriptions may belong to the 7th or 8th century. The earliest 
appears to be the ones at the Mount and in the south wall of the Kotta- 
yam old church, the latest that behind a side altar in the same church 
and on which is also a sentence in Syriac in the ordinary Estrangelo cha- 
racter, to judge by facsimiles of MSS. of a period not older than the 10th 
century. At all events, these Crosses are long subsequent to the time 
of the Apostle St. Thomas." 32 

I agree with these scholars, and think, that the inscriptions 
belong to times much posterior to Apostle St. Thomas. I think 
there is a very great likelihood of their belonging to the 7th and 
8th century after Christ. In this connection, I wish to draw 
special attention of the students of this question to what 
Anquetil Du Perron has said about a tradition that he had 
heard. I will quote him at some length : 

31 Epigraphia Indica, vol. 4, p. 176. 32 Reprint in the Indian Antiquary. 


A Christiar) Crm^f^ wifh a PahJari InscripHon 17 

" Quelle est done Torigine du Cliristianisme dans I'lnde ? Jo crois 
que cotte question ne peut etre d^cid^e par les Monuments qui existent 
actuellement dans cette Contree. Ce qu'on dit d'un Mage, qui avoit Ic 
titre do Mannaca visser (mot qu'on pretend singfior Manicheeti), et qui 
passa dans I'lndo ou il repandit sa doctrine, ne m'a 6te confirm^ par 
aucun Chretien do Saint Thomas, Catholique, ni Schismatique. 
Mais, sans m'arreter aux autorit^s vraies ou suppos^es, je dis que ceux 
qui connoissent I'Orient no trouveront rien d'impossible, ni memo d'ex- 
traordinaire dans I'Apostolat de Saint Thomas aux Indos Orientales. L(;s 
Caravanes de Syrie pour Bassora, marchoient alors comme a prdsent. 
Les Arabes alloient aux Indes tous les ans et ddbarquoient aux envi- 
rons des lieux nommes maintenant Calicut & Mazulipatam. J'ajoute 
que, Rolon une opinion regue dans le Pays, plusieurs Chretiens de Chaldoe, 
fuyant, dans le septieme siecle, la persecution des Mahometans s'embar- 
querent a Bassora, & vinrent s'etablir parmi les Chretiens d? Saint 
Thomas". 33 

This statement of Anquetil seems to present the possibility of 
two views. These Crosses may be the work of some Persian 
Christians who had taken to Manichaeism and who, therefo.'e, in 
order- to avoid the persecution in their own country, had fled from 
there under the leadership of a Zoroastrian Magi, who also had 
turned to be a follower of Mani and settled on the shores of India. 

Dr. Burnell has in his above-mentioned paper, referred to these 
Manichaeans and has even pointed to a place in Malabar as deriv- 
ing its name from Mani. 

But I think that there is reason to believe that tliese Crosses 
were not put up by Manichaean Christians, or Christian Manich- 
aeans, because the history of the Manichaeans and of the Albi- 
genses, who were an offshoot of the Manichaeans, shows that the 
Manichaeans were persecuted by the orthodox Christians on the 
ground that they were not true followers of Christ. Manichaeism 
was a mixture of Zoroastrianism, Christianity and even of Bud- 
dhism. One may say that in spite of their not being true orthodox 
Christians, they believed in Christ. But what we know of the 
tenets of Manichaeism does not permit us to believe that they had 
that faith in the personality of Christ as a redeemer of afflictions, 
as seems to have been evinced by the offerers of the Crosses in 
question, in the Pahlavi inscriptions. 

33 Zend-Avesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre, tome premier, premiere partie, 

IS c ^r Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

So, I think that the Christians who offered the Crosses were the 
Cliristians referred to by Anquetil in the last part of the above 
extract. e They were the Christians who had to leave Persia, like 
the ZoroastrianSj to escape from the persecutions of the Arab in- 
vadv^rs of Persia. We must bear in mind that here, it is not only 
the question of Anquetil's own view. He speaks of what he had 
heard in Malabar itself. I therefore think th^t the Crosses may be 
the offerings of some of the Christians who had come to the shores 
of India in the middle or latter part of the seventh century and in 
the eighth century, owing to the persecution of the Arabs, and, in 
referring to the afflictions of Christ, they allude to their own afflic- 
tions of being compelled to leave their country for their faith. 

Since this first attempt at reading and translation sent to 
Mr. Ayyar and after I announced my paper, I have seen in the 
Indian Academy of June 1924 (p. 122) what is called a photo-lith 
with " scale one-third," given by Mr. T. K. Joseph with a short 
Note,wherein he gives in a foot-note my foregoing translation as sent 
by me to the Superintendent of Archaeology of Travancore. If 
that be a litho from a clearer photo, I should like to modify my 
reading a little in the third line, though that will not make any 
important change in the meaning. My reading of the third line from 
this larger photo is as foUows: 

[Am...(?) Meshiha avakhshahi min bim bokht.] 


" I whom. ..(?) Messiah, the forgiver, freed from danger (or 

The modification consists of the following: 

{a) The reading of the foot word as am in place of li. 
This makes no change in the meaning. 

(b) I get doubtful about the word preceding Messiah whicli 
I first read as ahlob, i.e., 'holy.' 

(c) I read the last but one word as him instead of hhar ; 
but this modification in the reading of the word makes no import- 
ant change in the sense. 

September, 1924. 


{Read on llth March 1924.) 



There is a small Pahlavi treatise known as "Madlgan-i Blna- 
Fravardm ytim-i Khurdad," i.e., " an account of month Fra- 
vardin, day Khurdad." It is referred to by Dr. E. West as " Madi- 
gan-i mah Fravardin roz Khurdad" in his article on the Pahlavi 
Literature. ^ It describes the remarkable events said to have- 
occurred on the Khurdad-sal day, from the beginning of the creation 
upto now, and says, that even the Resurrection day will fall on that 
day. This Khurdad-sal day now falls in September. It is still 
observed with some eclat by the Parsees and is declared as a Public 
Holiday by Government. 

In this Pahlavi treatise, we read the following reference to 18 
remarkable things or events of the reign of Khusru Parviz {i.e. 
Khusru the Victorious), known by Western writers as Chosroes II 
his grand-father Naushirwan ' Adil(^.e.,NaushIrwan the Just) be- 
ing known as Chosroes I. (sec. 27) 

1 Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie, Band II, pp. 75 et seq. Vid6 
p. Ill for the reference to the text of the events. The Text is pubUshed in 
The Pahlavi Texts by Dastur Dr. Jamaspji Minocherji (pp. 102 et seq). It. 
is translated by Dastur Kaikhosru Jamaspji in the K. R. Cama Memorial 
Volmne (pp. 122 et seq), edited by me. An incomplete Persian version of 
the treatise is found in the Rivayets {vide Dastur Darab Hormuzdyar a^ 
Rivayet by M. R. Untrala, with my Introduction, Vol. II, p. 49), 

•20 FAghteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 

Translation : In the month of Fravardin, on the day Khordad, 
18 things 2 came (or occurred ) to Khusru, the son of Hormazd 
during 18 years. 

The Pahlavi treatise does not say what the particular 18 
remarkable things or events of Khusru's reign were. Again, it 
■does not say which particular 18 years of Khusru's long reign of 
38 years (590-628 A.C.) are meant as those during which the things 
or events occurred. There is no other writing, Pahlavi or Persian, 
as far as I know, which enumerates and determines these 18 things 
or events. 

I was led to the study of this subject by an interesting article 
entitled, "Note sur une Tapisserie Arabe du Vllle siecle " byM.E. 
Blochet in the October 1923 issue (pp. 613-17) of the Journal of the 
Royal Asiatic Society. M. Blochet describes the Arab Tapestry and 
illustrates his description with a plate, representing a piece of the 
tapestry in the collection of M. E. Gejou of Paris. He traces the 
•design to an original Persian carpet of Khusru Parviz. He thus 
refers to it : 

" The Mahomedan historians, (both) Arab and Persian, have preserved 
for us in their chronicles, a tradition, according to which the army of Sa'd, 
which seized Ctesiphon in 637 (A. C.) found in the palace of the King of 
Persia a carpet of gigantic dimensions, the history of which seems to be a 
legend borrowed from (the book of) The Thousand and One Nights. The 
subjects of the Sassanian monarch called this carpet ' The Spring of Khusru ' 
and the Arabs, who had never seen at Mecca or Medina an object with which 
they could compare it, gave it the name of al-Kathif i.e., the Carpet." ^ 

2 The Pahlavi word for " things" used in this passage is mandavam 
or (mindavam), traditionally read as mandum. It means " a thing, some- 
thing, anything, a matter, an affair, a concern, property." Its Pazend 
synonym is chish Pers. Ua. (West-Haug's Glossary of Viraf-Nsimeh, 
p. 221). 

^ '' Les histor.'ens rausulmans, arabes et persans, nous ont conserve 
dans leurs chroniques une tradition suivant laquelle I'armde du Sa'd, qui 
s'empara de Ctdsiphon, en 637, trouva dans le palais du roi de Perse un 
tapis de dimensions gigantesques, dont I'histoire semble une Idgende em- 
pruntee aux Mille et Une Nuits. (E. Blochet, Les Peintures des Manuscrits 
•Orientaux de la Bibliotheque Nationale, dans les Publications de la Socitt^ 
Fran^aise de reproduction de manuscrits a peintures, Paris, 1914 — 20, Page 
137f^.) Les sujets du monarque sassanide nommaient ce tapis ' le Printemps du 

Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru P%rvtz 21 

M. Blochet then describes the carpet and says that according 
to Arab historians, during the monotonous rigour of winter,, the 
•carpet gave to the King of Iran the illusion of the budding spring 
(printemps naissant). In winter, the king lived in the vaulted 
halls of the White Palace of Ctesiphon. There, he got this carpet 
spread on the pavements of the galleries and with his family in the 
midst of the groves, which were embroidered in gold and silk on 
the carpet, imagined to himself that he was enjoying the spring 
«eason. Hence, the carpet was named " the Spring of Khusru." 
When Ctesiphon fell, this carpet was captured by the Arab army 
and sent to Khalif Omar at Medina. There, it was broken up in 
pieces. M. Blochet says that the style of this carpet continued 
in Persian carpets upto the 16th century. M. Blochet then gives a 
plate illustrating a carpet in which the above style of embroidery 
ivas copied. 

Now I think that the carpet of Khusru, known as the " Spring 
•of Khusru " referred to by M. Blochet, as being one, the style of 
-which served as a model for a long time, was one of the 18 remark- 
able things of the reign of Khusru Parviz * referred to in the 
above Pahlavi treatise. The object of this paper, therefore, is to 
determine, as said above, the 18 remarkable things or events of 
Khusru's reign and the period of 18 years during which they 
-occurred. First of all, I will determine, what we may call, the 
fortunate 18 years of Khusru's reign. 


The Fortunate 18 years of Khusru's reign. 

Khusru Parviz was one of the most unfortunate as well as one 
of the most fortunate kings of Persia. As said by Noldeke on the 

Chosroes,' et les Arabes, qui, a la Mecque et a M^dine, n'avaient jamais vu un 
object qu'on lui put comparer, lui donnerent le nom de al-Kathif ' le Tapis.', 
* Old Arab writers like Mas'udi and Tabari, give the name as 
( W ^ V I ) abarwiz. The word seems to be originally something like Av. 
apara, (far off,) and viz or rather vis f^^ (to be or become or to come), i.e., 
•one who reaches far off ; then victorious. Noldeke {Geschichte der Perser 
' und Araber, p. 275 n.) thus traces it : aparweg, aparwez, (neu-Pers.) aharwei 
(arab ahariz — oder abanuaz) oder parwlz " siegreich" ( victorious). « 

22 Eighteen Remarkable things of Khusru Parviz 

authority of Tabati, Khusru Parviz "was one of the Persian kings^ 
who, in valor, prudence and distant military expeditions, was the 
most prominent." ^ The reign of Khusru Parviz was a reign in 
which Persia had come into great contact with the later Eoman 
Empire. The history of the times of Emperor Maurice, his mur- 
derer and his successor Phoceon and of his successor Heraclius, 
is greatly connected with the history of Persia in the time of Khusru. 
Again, some of the 18 things or events in the 18 years of his reign 
are associated with both, the history of Persia and the history of 
the Roman Empire. So, a brief narration of the historical relations 
between the two countries seems to be necessary to understand our 
subject well and to enable us to determine the 18 years and the 18 
events or things. 

Khusru came to the throne of Persia in 590 A. C. when his 

father Hormazd was deposed and put to death at Ctesiphon. Then 

for six more years he was not secure on his 

, , ' throne and had to look after the dangerous 
sistmg between ^ 

Persia and Rome conspirators of his own court and country, the 

very men who had revolted against his father 

and murdered him. In these early years, he had to run away to the 

Court of the Roman Emperor Maurice, who not only helped him, 

but, according to Masudi, Firdausi and other writers, gave him, 

in marriage, his daughter Mary ( ^;L« ). ^ By the treaty of 

alliance which was the result of the marriage, ^ Khusru gave up to 

the Roman Emperor his rights on the country of Egypt and Syria 

which his grandfather Naushirwan had conquered. 

5 " Dies war einer der persischen Konige, welche durch Tapferkeit, 
Klugheit and weite Kriegziige, am meisten hervorragten." {Geschichte der 
Perser und Araber zur zeit der Sasaniden aiis der Arabischen Chronik des 
Tabari, von Th. Noldeke (1879), p. 275.) 

^ Masudi transl. B. de Mejmard, II, p. 221. 

7 With reference to this marriage of a Zoroastrian king with a Chris-- 
tian princess, Masudi refers to the custom of the kings of Iran which required 
that an Iranian can marry the girl of a non-Iranian but not give an Iranian 
girl in marriage to a non-Iranian. He points, as analogy for a similar 
custom, to the Korachites. He says : " Le rois de Perse pouvaient 
^pouser les filles des rois etrangers ; mais ils ne voulaient pas de ces 
rois pour gendres, parce qu'ils se consideraient comme d'une race plus libre- , 


Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Pa^vh 23 

Gibbon, in his long account of Khusru's relations with Maurice, 
does not refer to this marriage, but according to him, the relations 
between Khusru and Maurice were like those of a son and father. 
He speaks of Maurice as Khusru's " adopted father" ® and of 
Khusru as his son. So, the relationship, if not of father-in-law 
and son-in-law, was certainly something like that of an adopted 
father and son. Khusru remained faithful to the Roman Emperor 
Maurice till the end of his life when he was killed in the revolution 
of Phocas. Then he helped his son Theodosius. In fact, his subse- 
quent war with Rome was to avenge, as it were, the insult that 
Rome, instigated by Phocas, had done to his adopted father. * 

Now, just as Khusru and his father had to suffer at the hands 
of rebels in their country, Emperor Maurice had to do the sanie. 
He fell at the hands of Phocas (603 A.C.), who seized the^throne 
of the Roman Empire. By this time Khusru bad established 
himself on his throne, and was in a position strong Enough to avenge 
the death of Maurice. He helped Theodosius, the son of Maurice, 
who had fled and sought his shelter. He on behalf of Theodosius, 
declared war against the Roman Emperor Heraclius, who was, at 
one time, the Governor of Africa, and who, overthrowing Phocas, 
the usurper, in 610 A.C., had come to the throne. In the next year, 
Khusru Parviz invaded Syria and took Antioch and Apamea. 
He invaded Cappadocia in 612 A.C. In 614 A.C., he took Damascus. 
He then enlisted 26,000 Jews in his army and raised a general war 
against the Christians, and going to Palestine, took Jerusalem and 
captured the holy cross on which Christ was crucified. In 616, 
his general Shahr Baraz, crossing the desert, went over to Egypt 

et plus noble. Les Persans entrent dans de longs details sur cet usage 
qui off re de I'analogie avec les privileges des Koreichites et leur titre de 
Hamas (braves.)" (Ibid.) 

8 The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1844), Vol. Ill, p. 238. 

^ It was said that the influence of the relationship with Maurice 
had turned Khusru a Httle to Christianity. If so, it may have been for a 
short time only. According to Gibbon, the pregnancy of this beloved wife 
of his, whom he calls " Sira or Schirin " and who was a devout Christian, wag 
ascribed to the King's devotion to the Christian bishop Sergius (Ibid), 
On his return to Persia, Khusru is said to have had 1,000 picked Roman 
soldiers as his bodyguard. 

24 Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 

and captured Pelusium and Alexandria. Thus, after about 90O 
years, Persia regained Egypt which was first conquered by the 
Achiemenians. In 617, Khusru' s second army, which had invaded 
Cappadocia, besieged Chalcedon, situated on the Bithynian coast 
opposite to Constantinople. Heraclius sued for peace on the advice 
of the Persian general Sain but in vain. Khusru got enraged 
against his general for the above advice. Chalcedon fell in 61T 
A.C. With this victory, Persia extended its sway over all the re- 
gions once ruled over by the Achaemenians. The great Roman 
Empire was now reduced merely to the city of Constantinople and 
some stray tracts of country in Italy, Greece and Africa. And 
according to the saying that, at times, misfortunes do not come 
singly, the Avars, an offshoot of the Old Hun race, invaded Thrace 
and threatened Constantinople itself. Being hard pressed on all 
sides, Heraclius thought of leaving Constantinople and going to 
Carthage in Africa, the region of his former governorship. So 
during this time of various difficulties, he embarked all his treasures 
on board the ships to be carried away, before him, to Africa, his- 
proposed destination of flight. When Tabari speaks of Abyssinia as 
the country to which the Roman treasures were sent, the country 
meant was Africa, of which Abyssinia was then an important 
part. But another misfortune followed. The fleet of ships carry- 
ing his treasures to Africa was wafted by adverse winds to a Persian 
port in Asia Minor and the great Roman treasure fell into the 
hands of Khusru. At home, another misfortune overtook Herac- 
lius. The news of his proposed flight to Africa became known to 
the people whom he wanted to desert in their difficulties and they 
all rose against him under the Patriarch of Constantinople. They 
prevented him from running away and the Patriarch made him 
swear in the famous church of St. Sophia, that he would stick to 
his country and not run away. 

What stood by his side in the midst of all his misfortunes 
was his maritime power. With the help of this power, he went to 
the Armenian frontiers and defeated the Persian army there in 
622 A.C. and returned victorious to Constantinople. The next 
year (623), he again marched against the Persians — this time with 
the allied help of the Khazars, another offshoot of the Huns. He 

Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parvi^ 25- 

won a great victory and destroyed several Persian towns and places, 
one of the most important of which was the city on Lake Urumiah 
(Chaechista of the Avesta), where burned one of the most^acred 
Fires of the Zoroastrians. He destroyed the great Fire-temple and 
avenged, as said by Noldeke, the fall of Jerusalem. 

In 624, the Persian army under Shahr Baraz was defeated in 
Armenia. In 625 Shahr Baraz was again defeated in Cilicia. In 
626, Khusru took into his alliance the Khan of the Avars and made 
a powerful attempt to turn the tide of his defeat. He stood well 
in the land fight near Tiflis. His allies, the Avars, had attacked 
Constantinople, but owing to w^ant of sea- power, the Persians could 
not render any substantial help, in time, to the Avars. So, the 
attack on Constantinople failed. 

In 627, Heraclius attacked Dastgard, the city of Khusru's 
residence, about 70 miles north of Ctesiphon, and, after a stubborn 
fight in several places, won the final victory against Khusru. This 
defeat brought about a revolution in Khusru's country. He had 
further made himself unpopular by misbehaving with two generals, 
who, though fighting bravely under unfortunate circumstances, lost 
battles. His nobles rose against him and he was put into prison 
and later on murdered. (628 A.C.). 

Thus, we see that the fortunate successful years of Khusru 
commenced from 604, when he began to wage a successful war 
against Rome under Phocus, who had murdered the preceding 
Roman Emperor, and ended in 622 when Heraclius turned the 
scales of victory against him. 


The Eighteen Remarkable Things or Events. 

Now, we come to the subject of the 18 remarkable things or 
events which occurred during the above 18 years. As said above, 
though we do not find any regular enumeration in any work,. 
Pahlavi or Persian, we are in a position to make up an approximat 
though not a sure and certain list from various sources. 

First of all, it is the Arab historian Tabarl who refers to a num- 
ber of these remarkable events of Khusru's reign. The subject 

-26 Eighteen Bemarhahle ^£hings of Khusru Parviz 

forms, according to his translator, Zotenberg, ^^ the 55th chapter 
of the second part of his work. 

^ Tabari's List of some of the 18 things. 

In the Persian Version of Tabari's work there is a separate 
chapter, headed : ^^ 

JAJ)^^ ^y^ rS jjjjJ .^iw ^^^y^ ^'^^'^^^ / '^ )^ 

.{i.e., in the matter of the reign of Khusru Parviz who is called 
Kesr). Therein, we have an account of some of his very rare unique 
possessions. Zotenberg has very properly headed the chapter as 
that of Khusru' s Treasures (richesses).^^ jj^ this chapter of Tabari, 
we have a mention of the following rare possessions of Khusru' s 
reign. I will first enumerate them and will then describe them in 
some details. 

1. A rich golden throne known as Takdis. 

2. A rich crown. 

3. A very swift Koman horse, known a#Shabdiz. 

4. A young girl of surprising beauty, known as Shirin. 

5. An enormous treasure, known as Badverd, which was cap- 

tured from the Roman Emperor. 

6. A stable of 50,000 horses, camels and mules. 

7. 1,000 elephants. 

8. A harem containing 12,000 women including free and slave 


9. 12,000 white camels known as Turkish camels. 

10. A towel made of malleable gold. 

11. Two great musicians named Barboud and Sergius. 

12. A rich carpet (mentioned in a separate chapter by 


10 Tabari, transl. Zotenberg II, pp. 3^4-5. For the Arabic text 
of the reign of Khusru, spoken of by Tabari as ^J; *J 1 c^T y***^ Kesr Abarviz 
vide " Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed ibn Djarir at Tabari 
cum alis edidit M. J. de Goeje. Prima Series II, recensuerunt J. Earth et 
Th. Noldeke (1881-82)" p. 1009. 

11 Munshi Naval Kishore's Text of 1874, p. 359. 

12 Zotenberg, op. cit. II, p. 304. 

Eighteen Remarkable Thhtgs of Khusru Parviz 27 

These things form the list of Khusru's very rare valuable 
possessions as given by Tabari.^^ I will now describe these in 
some detail : * 

The first unique thing which Khusru possessed was a golden 

throne named Takdis.^* It had a height of 110 cubits ^^ ( ^j I ) 

having its four feet of red rubies. At the end 

1. A rich Golden of each foot there were 100 pearls, each of the 

Throne. size of the egg of a sparrow (kunjishk). Fir- 

dausi gives a long description of this throne. 
He first refers to a throne of the kings of Persia which was first 
got constructed by Faridun through an architect named Jahn 
Barzin {^ji)f. ^J^=^)' Faridun had possessed three valuable 
things : 1. A cow-shaped mace {gurz-i gavsar) ; 2. A jewel, named 
haft-chashma {i.e., seven-eyed or seven- sided) ; and 3. This throne. 
The kings who succeeded him, one by one, added to the beauty 
of the throne by putting on it additional jewels. It came down 
upto the time of Alexander who destroyed it and Firdausi calls 
this a " senseless work " (bi-danashi) on Alexander's part. When 
Ardeshir (Babegan) ascended the throne, he heard of it and 
collecting the remains or broken parts of the old throne reconstruct- 
ed another throne, which, later on, was embellished by Noshirwan 
(Chosroes I). Khusru Parviz, on coming to the throne of Persia, 
thought of reconstructing it {ke an namvar takht ra nao kunam). 
He heard that there were old records to show that king Gushtasp 
had thought of constructing a throne on the advice and design of 
his minister Jamasp. He sent for the records and proceeded to 
construct another grand throne with the help of his architects 

13 I have followed in this enumeration, not Nawal Kishore's Text, 
■which is much abridged, but Zotenberg's version (Vol. II, pp. 304-5, 
Chap. 55). 

1* Lit. " like {\^j^ »^ dis) an arch." 

15 Tabari, Text, op. cit., p. 359, last line. Zotenberg, p. 304. Fir- 
dausi" gives 170 cubits. A cubit is about 18 inches. 

16 Macan's Calcutta Edition, Vol. IV, pp. 2004 et seq. I give my 
translation from this text. Vide Mohl's smaU edition. Vol. VII, pp. 249, 
et seq. Kutar Brothers' Shah-namah, Vol. X, p. 74. Dastur Minoche- 
her's Trans., Vol. IX, p. 499. 

28 Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 

assisted by those from Koum (Constantinople), Chint- 
Mekran and Bagdad. 1,120 artizans, with 30 apprentices 
under, each, worked for two years over the throne. The 
throne was 120 rash'^'^ (i.e., cubits) in breadth. The height 
of the throne was greater than the breadth. On each of the 
30 days of the month, different kinds of carpets (farsh) were spread 
upon it. It was made of ten parts (lakht) with 140,000 paintings, 
with turquoises set on a golden surface. The clasps and nails were^ 
all of silver. The throne was put upon the ground of a race-course^ 
(asp-ris) and the surroundings were artistically prepared, so that, 
with the position of the sun in the different constellations, different 
garden landscapes presented themselves. It was provided with 
sufficient warm curtains or screens (taq) ^^ for the winter. Again 
a thousand golden and silver balls were kept on it, and, they, being^ 
heated by some contrivance, diffused heat. Each of the balls, 
weighed 500 7msqals.^^ Half the number (i.e., 500) of the balls 
were in turn kept on the throne to give warmth and half the 
number were in turn carried to the fire to be heated. The throne was 
mathematically or astronomically so arranged in the midst of its 
surroundings, that those sitting on it could know by what they saw, 
the position of the moon in the heavens at the time and calculated 
what time of night it was. The whole structure consisted of 
three stages, one over the other, all the three standing on a plat- 
form. The throne-seats of all the stages were decorated with rich 
jewels. Four steps led from one stage to the higher. All the steps 
were of gold and were bedecked with jewels. The first part or stage 
of the throne was called mish-sar (i.e., sheep-like), because it had 
the facing of a sheep. The second was called lajward (i.e., of lapis 
lazuli). The third stage of the throne was made of pirouzeh (i.e., 
turquoise). On the public occasions when the court was held, 
the lower mish-sar stage or platform of the throne was occupied 
by the commoners (dahkan va zir dastan, i.e., the villagers and the 
subordinates) ; the lajvardi platform was occupied by the higher 

17 A rash or cubit is one and a half foot. So, the breadth of the 
throne came to 180 ft. 

18 cf. Gujarat! ni'Sl. 

19 A misqal is one and three-seventh dram in weight. 



Eighteen Remarkable Things of KJiusru Parviz 29- 

, ■> 

military classes. The highest platform of turquoise was occupied 
by the Dastur or the Prime Minister. 

It appears from the above description of the throjie 1by 
FirdausI, that it was not an ordinary throne but a huge piece of 
structure with platforms or stages rising one over another, over the- 
uppermost of which sat the king himself with his prime minister 
by his side. 

Khusru's second rare possession, according to Tabari, was a 

2. A Rich very rich crown. It was a crown having 100" 
Crown. pearls, each of the size of a bird's egg.^ 

The third valuable possession of Khusru was a horse- 
named Shab-diz, i.e., the night- coloured or dark-coloured (horse). 
It was " taller than any (other horse) in the- 

3. The Horse world, being four cubit-measures (zara*). It 
Shab-diz. had come to his hands from Eoum.^^ When it 

was shod on its ' hands and feet,' ^ the shoe- 
had to be fastened with 8 nails on each. Shab-diz ate the same- 
food which Khusru Parviz ate. When the horse died they sculp- 
tured his features in stone." ^"^ 

The next rare and valuable possession; of Khusru was- 
Shirin. The story of Khusru and Shirm ha^ been the subject of 
the poetical writings of more than one Persian 
poet. Tabari speaks of her as "a girl (kanizak) 
named Shirin than whom no Turkish or Arab- 
person had a more beautiful and comely face. 
This Shirin was one, of whom Farhad was enamoured and for 
whom he excavated and broke the mountain of Bisatun. Each 
piece of stone which Farhad broke from the mountain was so large 

20 Zotenberg, op. cit. II, p. 304. The way in which Tabari gives his- 
account may possibly make one doubtful, whether to take this as a separate- 

21 Constantinople. 

22 Dast va pai. The front feet are spoken of as hands. 

23 I have translated this from Naval Kishore's edition of Tabari 
p. 360 11. 1-3. According to the Text which Zotenberg has- 
followed, Tabari said that the sculpture stood at Kirmanshah 
upto his time (Hijri 224 to 310 ; A.C. 838 to 922). Maaudi also- 

30 ■ Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 

that 10 men, nay even 100, could not lift up and these (stones) are 
still lying there now (lit even to-day that is so)." ^^ 

* Parviz possessed a Treasure called Bad-vard (i.e., carried 
away by the wind). ^^ It is said that the King of Roum was sending 

to Abyssinia his immense treasure for safety as 

5. The Treasure a powerful enemy was about to invade his 

known as Bddvard. country. Adverse winds wafted the boats, about 

1,000, carrying the treasures to the shores of 
Persia and Khusru seized them. We find from our above brief 
historical account that this Bad ward (wind- carried) treasure was 
the treasure which Heraclius was stealthily sending away from 
Constantinople to Africa. Tabari says that the adverse winds 
carried the treasure boats to '^the shores of Oman in the territories 
of Persia." But from the brief history of Persia and Rome during 

says the same thing. He says : *' C'est le cheval qu'on voit sculpte 
sur le montagne de Kermasin " (Kirmanchah). Masudi speaks 
•of the horse as Shabdar ) I ^^ (Ma90udi traduit par Barbier de Meynard 
II, pp. 215-16). Mas'udi gives the following story about the horse : Once 
when the king was riding on it, the rein broke. He sent for the master of 
his equippage and was going to cut off his head to punish him for his negli- 
gence in not looking well after the saddle of the horse, when the man said : 
" Sire, nothing can stand against the king of men and against the king of 
horses, " meaning thereby that it was the strength of the horse and the 
rider which led to violent riding and brought about the breaking of the 
reins. This was indirectly a compliment to the king and to his horse. 
The king was pleased and gave him his life. According to Gibbon, his two 
favourite horses were *' Shebdiz and Barid" {Op. cit.. Ill, p. 251). The 
sculpture forms a part of the well-known sculptures of Taq-i Bostan. (After 
writing the above, I had the pleasure of visiting this sculpture during my 
tour in Persia via Russia. Vide my book of Travels ( >ii<l H,'^^ oiiil^nl ^^€l 
V<^S p. 357). 

2^ i.e., in the time of Tabari. I have followed Naval Kishore's Text, 
p. 360 1. 4. Local tradition, even now, connects Farhad with Bisatun, but 
the Inscription on the Mount shows that the sculptures belonged to Darius. 
Vide my Books of Travels {op. cit. pp. 363-368), published since writing 
the above. 

25 I give an account of this and some subsequent remarkable things on 
the authority of Zotenberg {Op. cit. II, p. 305.). Naval Kishore's abridged 
text does not refer to them. The word Bad-vard may be taken either as 
.^yi »5 u, i.e., carried hy wind or i^Jj I 4>u> i.e., brought by wind. 

Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khosru Parviz^ 31 

these times which we have traced above, it appears that Tabari is 
wrong in saying that the treasure was wafted to the sea or gulf of 
Oman. Gibbon, who seems to speak resting on other auth9rities, 
is right in saying that it was wafted into one of the Syrian ports 
possessed by Persia.^^ 

Khusru possessed 50,000 horses, camels and mules, out 

of which he had 8,000 for his own personal use. Now the mere 

possession of a large number of horses, &c. — and 

6. Khus ru's in fact the number is not unusually large — should 
Valuable Stable. not make it a rare possession. So, a further 

statement of Mas'udi on the subject makes the- 
point clear. He says : " His stable included 50,000 horses or 
beasts of burden ; all the horses which formed his cortege had a 
saddle of gold enriched with precious stones and pearls." ^7 

He possessed 1,000 elephants, ^s Mas'udi ^^ explains as 
to what the rarity in this possession was. He says that the 

elephants were whiter than snow, some of them 

7. Possession of were 12 cubits ^^ in height. He adds that this 
1,000 Elephants. height is very rare for war-elephants, the average 

being between 9 and 10 cubits and that the kings 
of India paid very high prices for any elephant of greater height than 
the above average. He adds in passing that the elephants of zanj 
( ^ j ) have still higher statures. Their tusks at times weigh 
150 to 200 maunds ( ^ ), each maund weighing two ratals 
( ^J ) ^•^- pounds of Bagdad. Mas'udi further adds that when 

26 Gibbon {Op. cit. Ill, p. 251 j thus refers to this treasure of Badvard ; 
" The various treasures of gold, silver, gems, silk and aromatics, were 
deposited in a hundred subterraneous vaults ; and the chamber Bada-verd 
denoted the accidental gift of the winds which had wafted the spoils- 
of Heraclius into one of the Syrian harbours of his rival." 

27 I translate from the French of Barbier de M^ynard's Ma90udi Vol. II, 
p. 230. Masfi'di speaks of Khusru Parviz as jJ ^jJ I which Barbier de 
Meynard reads as Eberviz. I think Mas'udi read the izafat of the word* 
Khusru-i Parviz with the last word which he read Barviz instead of Parviz^ 

28 Gibbon says : " Nine hundred and sixty elephants were maintained 
for the use or splendour of the great king." {Op. cit. Ill, p. 251.) 

29 Barbier de Meynard, op. cit. II, 230. 
30 i.e. about 18 ft. 

.S2 Fjighteen Remarkable things of Khusru Parviz 

the king reviewed his army, these 1,000 elephants, when they passed 
before him, lowered their heads and folded their trunks and remain- 
ed in ;*3hat posture till their drivers drew their ropes and said some 
words in their Indian language. The king often regretted that the 
-elephants were not the products of Persia. He admired much 
:their intelligence. ^ 

Khusru had twelve thousand women, both 

usru s ^^^^ ^^^ slave, serving as maid-servants in his 
.Maid-servants. ^ 


He possessed 12,000 white camels. Gibbon^^ says on this 

subject : " His tents and baggage were carried 

^ * , into the field by twelve thousand great camels 

'l^jUUu camels , 

and eight thousand of a smaller size." 

One of the rarest things possessed by Khusru was a hand- 
kerchief for cleaning his hands, made out of malleable gold, i.e., 
gold which was extended by beating into very 
10. A Towel of thin sheets. When the handkerchief got dirty, 
Malleable Gold. it was thrown into fire where it did not burn 

and got its dirty stains and spots cleared. 

He had at his Court distinguished musicians like Barboud 

and Sargash. We do not find any account of these musicians in 

Tabari, but we learn the following from Fir- 

■ , ,^ ,' dausi : There was a musician of the name of 
iinguished Musi- 
cians at his Court. Sargasl. He was happy (or joyous) in music. 
He invoked blessings upon the king in his song 
(oronhis musical instrument rud) and gave many benedictions to 
-the Emperor. Great men threw jewels over him (i.e., were 
much pleased with him) and called him Farr-i Buzorgi, i.e., ' the 

31 Mas'udi adds his own admiration of the size, intelligence, docility 
and patience of the Indian elephants. He says they have a tact of discerning 
the desires of their masters and they distinguish a king from others. Zanj 
^eems to be Zanzibar. 

32 Gibbon says : " The service of the interior apartments was per- 
formed by twelve thousand slaves." In this number, there were " three 

thousand virgins, the fairest of Asia." (Gibbon, op, ciL HI, p. 251.) 

33 Op, ^ii-. Vol. in, p. 26L 

Eighteen Remarkable Tfiings of Khusru Parviz^ 33 

eplendour of greatness.' ^4 j j^ave given above my own trans- 
lation of Firdausi. As my translation and other translations ^^ all 
differ a little, I give here the lines in the original to enable 
«tudents to form their own opinion. 

Firdausi then says that in the 28th year of Khusru's reign (618 
A. C.) Barbad, a great singer, came to the court of Persia. Sargash 
•who commanded great influence in the Court, hearing of his arrival 
.got a little afraid, lest the singing of this new-comer, who had 
made his name outside the court, would undermine his influence 
with the king, and tried to keep him out of the Court, even going 
i:o the length of bribing the chamberlain for that purpose. We 
further learn from Firdausi that this Barbad w^as a foreigner. 
He went to the court of Khusru from his own country {ze keshvai 
iheshud ta ha dargah-i-shah). Thus it seems that both these singers 
were foreigners. Sargash was a Christian divine and Barbad also 
may be a Christian bishop. 

As to this musician Sargash ( k^/^ f ), I think, that he was 
the same as the St. Sergius of the Western writers. We know^ that 
there was a martyr named St. Sergius to whom Khusru was attach- 
ed. Gibbon refers to some preliminary inclination of the king 
-towards Christianity, the result of the influence of Maurice whom 
he calls his " adopted father," and then says : " The imaginary 
conversion of the king of Persia was reduced to a local super- 

34 Macan's (Calcutta ed.), Vol. IV, p. 2008. Mohl (small ed.). Vol. 
VII, p. 259. 

35 Yide the small edition of M. Mohl's French Translation, Vol. VII. 
-p. 255. Warner's Vol. VIII, p. 397. Dastur Tllinocheher's Vol. IV, p. 504, 
Xutar Brothers' Vol. IX, p. 78. 

34 J^ighteen Remarkable i'hings of Khusru Parviz 

stitious veneration for Sergius, one of the saints of Antioch, who 
heard his prayers and appeared to him in dreams ; he enriched his 
shrin^ with offerings of gold and silver, and ascribed to his invin- 
cible patron, the success of his arms, and the pregnancy of Sira,. 
a devout Christian, and the best beloved of his wives. The beauty 
of Sira or Schirin, her wit, her musical talents, are still famous in 
the history or rather in the romance of the east." ^^ So, I think 
that the Sargash of the Oriental writers is no other than Bishop 
Sergius. Again, let us take a note of what Firdausi says of 
Sargash' s song. He recited in his song benedictions and blessings. 
Again J I think, that the title Farr-i Buzargi referred to by Firdausi 
is a rendering of something like " His Keverence." All these facts 
lead me to conclude that Sargash and Sergius were the same 

We saw above, that in one place (Chap. 55 of Zotenberg) 
Tabari has referred to eleven rare things or events connected 

with the name of Khosru Parviz. He has refer- 

12. A Rich Car- red to therd under the head of Khusru' s 

pe«. treasures, " ses richesses," as said by Zotenberg 

on the authority of his text of Tabari. But 
we find, that Tabari has referred to a twelfth rare rich thing in 
another part of his work in his account of the defeat of the last 
Sassanian monarch Yazdagard. While describing all the 
teasures that fell into the hands of the Arabs, he thus describes a 
carpet which fell into their hands and which he names " the 
Spring of Khusru : ^^ 

jt ) '^^ i^Ui ^jXM. ^l^ ;ci> I ^ c>i; 1^1 ^j f^sXLJuJ ^)y 
^;I «^^ j^^ ^yilj ^;) xj ; JAi^ ^/j ^J:;) if J 

37 Op. cit. Vol. Ill, p. 238. 

38 Zotenberg, op. cit. Ill, p. 417. 

Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parvyn 35- 

jli^^y i.xc Ai] c^) fS. <Sj>^'Xi IJJ jJlc <jJJ| ^j Jjuu 

Translation. —In his treasures, they found a carpet 300 cubits 
long and 60 cubits broad. They called it Dastan. The kings of 
Persia spread it and sat on it at the time when there was nothing 
green in the world {i.e., in winter). On every 10 cubits of it, they 
had woven different jewels and on 10 cubits green emeralds ; on 10 
cubits white jewels ; on 10 cubits red rubies ; on 10 cubits blue 
rubies : on 10 cubits yellow rubies. Whoever looked on it thought 
that it was fairy-born (i.e., fairy-made). In it, jewels were set in, 
and pictures of all things which grow on earth and water and all green 
plants were woven in it. S'ad, on whom there may be the peace 
of God, sent it to Omar — may the peace of God be upon him . . 
And when it arrived at Madineh, Omar — may the peace of God be 
upon him — ordered that all that should be placed in the Masjid. 

I think, it is this carpet, which Firdausi describes at soma 

length, in his account of the reign of Khusru. 

F irdausi'' s It is after his account of the throne Takdis 

Account of Carpet, that he refers to it. ' He says (I give my 

translation) : 

Translation. — A gold embroidered cloth was spread (over 
the throne). Its length was 57 hands.*^ All its strings were 
woven with jewels and it was woven with golden threads. The 
Signs of Heaven were marked on it (such as) Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, 
Sun, Venus, Mercury and the brilliant Moon, which all declared 
the good or the evil (fortune) of the king. Again, it has pictures 
of the seven regions, of the peasants and of the battles of heroes. 

. 39 Munshi Naval Kishore's Text of Tabarl, p. 483 1.10. 

*o The measure is uncertain, but ^^ is used in the sense of *' tha 
upper hand " (Steingass). ^ 

36 Eighteen RemarkabU Things of Khusru Pi 


Again there were portraits of forty-seven (preceding) kings with 
their (decorated) hands, crowns and thrones. The crown of kings 
wds woven with gold and there never existed in the world a piece 
•of cloth like this. There was a matchless man in China and he 
had woven the cloth during seven years. In the beginning of the 
Hew year, on the day Hormazd, (month) JFarvardin he came before 
the King of the land of Iran. He carried the carpet which was 
worthy of the Kaes (or the Kayanian kings) before the king. The 
great men (of the court) made way for him. He spread the car- 
pet on the New Year day. The King was overjoyed with pleasure. 
He assembled his court in that capital and he sent for players of 
music and wine there.'^^ 

We find from the above account of Tabari that the carpet 
was sent with other treasures by the Arab general S'ad who captured 
Ctesiphon to Khalif Omar and that Omar placed it in the Masjid 
at Medinah. ^" It is this carpet to which M. Blochet refers, as said 
in the commencement of this paper. It was spread on the throne 
Taqdis, referred to above. 

Having described the 12 rare things referred to by Tabari, 
we will now refer to some rarities, referred to by other writers. 

According to Masudi ^^ Khusru Parviz possessed a set of nine 

seals of a rare kind. Mayoudi gives a pretty detailed description 

of them and refers to the different purposes 

13. A Set of 9 fQj. which they were used. I give below a table 

'- ' describing briefly the seal and its' use. 

Descri'ption. Use. 

X. A Diamond with a bezel of For letters and diplomas, 
red ruby engraved with a 
portrait of the king. ' 

41 Macan IV, p. 2007, 1. 20, Kutar Brothers X p. 77. 

42 This event of sending the carpet to the Holy place reminds us of the 
present annual event of sending a carpet to the Holy city by the Khedive 
of Egypt. Perhaps this eveni; was the origin or precursor of the modern 
annual event. 

*3 Masudi, par Barb ierdeMeynard, op. cit. n, p. 228. 

Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parvi^ 


Gold surmounted with a 
cornelean stone with a 
legend Khorassan Kho- 

reh (ji 



Gold ornamented with 
onyx with the portrait 
of a galloping rider with 
the legend " Kapidity." 

Gold with a bezel of rose- 
coloured ruby with the 
legend " Wealth is the 
source of prosperity." 

Ruby of the hahrman 
iij ^ yr^) species, the best 
of the red, pure, valuable 
kind with the legend 
khoureh va khurram 
[^js^ J ^ f^) i.e., splen- 
did and auspicious. This 
was encased in pearls and 

One with a bezel of Chinese 
Iron representing an 

One surmounted with a be- 
zoar with a fly engraved 
on it. 

One with a bezel of pearls 
with the effigy of the head 
of a pig. 

9. Of Iron. 

For State archives. 

For postal correspondence. 

For diplomas and Letters of In- 

For sealing treasures of precious 
stones, royal caskets and ward- 
robe and crown ornaments. 

For sealing despatches to foreign 

For sealing the dishes, medicine 
and perfumery intended for 
the king. 

For marking the necks of per- 
sons who were condemned to 
death and judicial decisions 
sentencing prisoners for capital 

Used when the. king retired for 
his bath. 

28 ,- Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 

I think that the palace which Khusru built and to which 

Firdausi refers at some length under a separate heading, entitled 

c • Aiwan sakhtan-i Khusru dar Madayan, i.e., 

. ' ,^ the buildinsf of a palace at Madayan 

of Khusru at Ma- ^ . , ■, -r^i i it i 

^- (Ctesiphon) by Khusru, should be taken as one 

of the 18 great things or events of the reign 
of Khursu. According to Firdausi, "^^^ he had sent for architects 
and artists from Roum, India, China and other countries to build 
this palace. He collected 3,000 masons and other artizans. Over 
these 3,000, he set 30 as superiors and over these thirty 
there were three — two Roumi or Byzantine and one Parsi, i.e., 
Persian, who were placed at the head of all. Then again, out of 
these three, one Byzantine was made the chief architect. This 
architect whose name was Fargana laid the foundation, 10 royal 
rash i.e., 15 feet deep and 7 J feet broad. After filling up the found- 
ation and the upper structure of plinth, he got some measurements 
taken and got the measuring tape duly marked placed in the trea- 
sury of the king. He then, with the view that the foundation may 
be set properly, asked to postpone the work of superstructure. But 
the king wanted him to proceed with the work. The architect 
thought that there was danger of the foundation sinking and that 
the foundation must be allowed to set properly. But, when he found 
that the king was impatient, rather than run the risk of building 
a grand palace which may sink, he quietly left the court and fled 
to his country. The king got angry and asked other experts to 
proceed with the work but none undertook the risk of sinkage by 
proceeding with the work at once. The king got disheartened and 
left off the idea of proceeding with the work till another good archi- 
tect was found. None capable to carry on the work could be 
found. So, no work was done for three years. The first Byzan- 
tine^ architect turned up again in the fourth year and explained 
the state of affairs to the king. He sent for the tape with the 
previous measurement, referred to above, from the treasury, and, 
measuring the foundation, plinth, &c., showed to the king that the 

43a Mohl small Edition VII, p. 260. Macan (IV p. 2011) gives the heading 
of the subject as '*Sakhtan-i Khusru Shehr-i Madayan ra." Kutar Brothers^ 
Vol. X, p. 81. 

Eighteen Remarl'ahle Things of Khusru Parvi^ • 39 

ujundation had sunk a little, that after three years* postponement 
, it had properly set itself, and that there was no risk of proceediijg 
with the work now. The architect then took seven yeare to 
complete the work. The palace so constructed was an unique 
work of art. 

It seems that notwithstanding all the precautions taken by 
the architect to do the work slowly in order to let the foundation 
set properly, the palace twice suffered damage during the very life- 
time of the King. According to Tabarl (Chapter 56, entitled Muji- 
zat-i Hazrat Paegambar i.e., The Miracles of the Prophet), the 
fall of a part of one of the vaults of the palace of Ctesiphon, was 
taken to be a miracle in connection with the new religion of the 
Arab prophet intended, to show to Khusru, that he was wrong in 
not acknowledging the prophet. 

The above 14 things or events present to us a splendid view of 
the grandeur and splendour of the Court of Khusru Parviz. Gibbon, 

while speaking of the luxurious life of Khusru 

Gibbon and i. m. • i. i j_aj^- i r 

,^ , , , at Ctesiphon and at Artaima, spoken of as 

Malcolm on the . ^ 

Riches of Khusru, ^astgard by oriental writers, thus refers to 

some of the remarkable things named in our 

above list. 

" Nine hundred and sixty elephants were maintained for the use or splend- 
our of the great king : his tents and baggage were carried into the field by 
twelve thousand great camels, and eight thousand of a smaller size ; and 
the royal stables were filled with six thousand mules and horses, among whom 
the names of Shebdiz and Barid are renowned for their speed or beauty. Six 
thousand guards successively mounted before the palace gate ; the service of 
the interior apartments was performed by twelve thousand slaves, the fairest 

of Asia The various treasures of gold, silver, gems, silk and 

aromatics, were deposited in a hundred subterraneous vaults ; and the chamber 
Badaverd denoted the accidental gift of the winds which had wafted the 
spoils of Heraclius into one of the Syrian harbours of his rival. The voice of 
flattery, and perhaps of fiction, is not ashamed to compute the thirty 
thousand rich hangings that adorned the walls, the forty thousand columns of 
silver, or more probably of marble, and plated wood, that supported the roof : 
and a thousand globes of gold suspended in the dome, to imitate the motions 
of the planets and constellations of the Zodiac." ^^ 

44 Vol. Ill, p. 251 (ed. of 1844). 

:40 c Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parv 


Malcolm, in his History of Persia tbus speaks of Khusm's 

luxury and magnificence, "(a) His noble palaces, of whicli lie built 

onerfor every season ; (6) bis thrones, which were invaluable, parti-' 

cularly that called Takh-dis, formed to represent the twelve signs 

of the Zodiac and the hours of the day ; (c) his treasures*^ ; {d) his 

ladies, of whom there were twelve thousand every one, if we believe 

the gravest Persian writers, equal to the moon in splendour and 

beauty; (e) his horses, of which fifty thousand stood in the royal 

stables ; (/) his twelve hundred elephants ; (.^)his Arabian*^ charge 

Shub-Deez, fleeter than the wind ; (h) his enchanting musician, 

Barbud ; (i) above all, the incomparable Shereen, with whom he 

was distractedly in love ; are subjects on which a thousand volumes 

have been written by his countrymen. Although the magnificence 

of this prince has been much exaggerated, we may conclude, that 

no monarch ever lived in greater luxury and splendour. His reign 

for more than thirty years was marked by a success never 

surpassed by the most renowned of his ancestors." ^"^ 

The nine remarkable possessions referred to by Malcolm in 
the above passage are contained in our above list given on the 
authority of Tabari. It seems that when Malcolm wrote this, he 
had the work of Tabari before him. 

One can name the Palace of Mashita in Moab, situated 

on the table-land on the east of the Dead Sea, as one of Khusru's 

rich rare possessions. Its exterior was orna- 

£ tt'i. . t.^ mented with beautiful sculpture on the stone 

oj Khusru at Ma- . . -"^ 

gj^ll^^ surface. The designs of this palace are believed 

to be presenting " an evident link between \ 

Assyrian and Byzantine art."^^ "Among the Mashita j 

45 " One of these treasures was called Badawerd or " The Gift of the 
Winds," because it had been cast upon his territories when convejdng to the 
Roman Emperor." Malcolm's History of Persia, Vol. I, p. 126. Malcolm is; 
wrong in this observation, as said above. 

46 According to Tabari, as said above, it was a charger from Roum 
(i.e., Constantinople.) 

47 Malcolm's History of Persia, Vol. I, pp. 125-26 2nd ed. of 1829. -^ 

48 W. Morris and Prof. Middleton in the article on " Mural Decora-* 
tion" in the Encyclopcedia Britannica {9th Ed.) Vol. XVII, p. 35, col. 1. 1 

Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parvizm 41 

carvings occurs that oldest and most widely spread of all forms of 
Aryan ornament — the sacred tree between two animals. TJhe 
sculptured slab over the ' lion gate ' at Mycenae has the ' other 
common variety of this motive — the fire-altar between the beasts. 
These designs, occasionally varied by figures of human worshipper 
instead of the beasts, survived in a most extraordinary way long 
after their meaning had been forgotten."*®" 

I think that Khusru' s conquest of the country round 

Constantinople and Jerusalem may be taken as the remaining three 

remarkable principal things or events of the reign 

16. Conquest of ^^ Khusru. As to Egypt, it had long remained 
Egypt. under the sway of the Roman Empire. As 

said by Mr. Reginald Stuart Poole, *^ Egypt, 
" remote from the great conflicts that destroyed the Western 
Empire, and threatened the existence of the Eastern, had enjoyed 
uninterrupted freedom from an invader since its conquest of 
Zenobia^*^ and had known no rebellion since that of Achilleus."^^ 
So, its fall when attacked by Khusru in 616 A.C. may naturally 
be considered as a great event. 

When Emperor Maurice of Rome was treacherously 
killed by the tyrant Phocas, who succeeded him in 602 A.C, 

Khusru assumed the role of a protector of Mau- 

17. Conquest of rice's deposed son Theodosius who had sought 
Chalcedon. refuge in his court. Again Narses, who ruled 

over the country round Edessa, asked his help 
against Phocas. So, when Phocas sent his ambassadors in 604 A.C. 
to the Court of Persia to announce his accession, Khusru imprisoned 
the ambassadors and declared war. The war lasted long, and, as said 
by Prof. Noldeke, Khusru " for 20 years laid the Roman lands open 
to such ravages as had never before been known ; so helpless was the 

48« Ibid. Vol. XVII, col. 1. n. 1. 

^^ Article on Egypt. Encyclopcedia Britannica (9th Ed.) Vol. VII. p. 748. 

so Zenobia was the queen of Palmyra. She came to power in A.C. 266. 
She claimed to be the queen of the East and invaded Syria and Egypt. 

51 Achilleus had assumed the title of Emperor rebelling against Dkr- 
cletian and ruled over Egypt for some time till overthroAvn and put to death 
by Diocletian in A.C. 296. 

4^ ^iahteen Remarkable "Things of Khusru Par viz 

empire under tlie bad rule of Phocas and through the pressure of 
Avars and other barbarians. Khosrau was present at the taking 

of Data (604 A.C.) After a few years, the Persian armies 

were seen as far west as Chalcedon against Constantinople."^^ 
Thus, this rrreat event of curbing the power of Eome, in a way 
never experienced before, should assuredly be considered a 
remarkable event of Khusru's reign. 

The conquest of Jerusalem and the capture of the very cross 
on which Christ was crucified was an event which surprised the 

whole Christendom, and so, it can easily be taken 

18. Conquest of as a remarkable event in the reign of Khusru. 

Jerusalem. Khusru took it in 614 A.C. and he is said to 

have burned some of the churches and sepul- 
chres. This conquest of Jerusalem and capture of the Holy Cross 
must have been considered a great remarkable event by the 
Persians, especially because they believed that the inclination of 
Khusru in the early years of his reign was in favour of Christianity. 
The Zoroastrian courtiers of the King did not like his being too 
much under the influence of Christian bishops and Christianity. 

We know from oriental writers, that the Zoroastrian courtiers 
nt one time, resented the king putting on the royal robe presented 
to him by his Christian father-in-law Maurice, because it carried the 
symbol of Cross and other Christian symbols. Again, we know" that 
at one time, when the Zoroastrian prayer of grace was recited by a 
Zoroastrian courtier — according to one authority, it was the king 
himself who was reciting it — at a dinnergiveninhonour of a Roman 
ambassador, the ambassador objected to the recital, saying that a 
Zoroastrian ritual should not take place in the presence of a Christian 
ambassador. The quarrel that rose between the Christian ambas- 
sador and the Zoroastrian courtier would have ended in blood- 
shed, had it not been for the Roman wife of Khusru who persuaded 
the ambassador, who in this case was one of her own brothers, to 
give way. Thus, under all these circumstances, the capture of 
Jerusalem and its Holy Cross may have been taken as a remarkable 

52 Prof.. Noldeke in his Article on Persia {Encyclopaedia BritannicOt 
9th Ed., Vol. 18, p. 614). 

EifjJiteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Par'i^z^ 43 

event of Khusru's reign by his people. Gibbon speaks of the 
capture of the Cross as " the ruin of the proudest monument; of 
Christianity." On the subject of the capture of Jerusalem and of 
the Holy Cross we read the following in Gibbon's History: ^^ 

" The conquest of Jerusalem, which had been meditated by Nushirvan 
was achieved by the zeal and avarice of his grandson ; the ruin of the proudest 
monument of Christianity was vehemently urged by the intolerant spirit of the 
Magi ; and he could enlist, for this holy^i warfare, an army of six and twenty 
thousand Jews, whose furious bigotry might compensate, in some degree, for 
the want of valour and discipline. After the reduction of GaUlee, and the 
region beyond the Jordon, whose resistance appears to have delayed the fate 
of the capital, Jerusalem itself was taken by assault. The sepulchre of 
Christ, and the stately churches of Helena and Constantine, were consumed, or 
at least damaged, by the flames ; the devout offerings of three hundred years 
were rifled in one sacrilegious day ; the patriarch Zachariah, and the true 
cross were transported into Persia." 

Sir P. Sykes speaks of this seizure of the " True Cross " as 
'•'an act which moved Christendom to its depths." ^^ Firdousi 
describes a letter of the Koman Emperor to Khusru requesting 
the return of the Holy Cross and Khusru's letter politely refusing 
that request. ^^ 

History tells us that the victory of Khusru in Jerusalem was 

short-lived. The new Roman Emperor Heraclius undid all that 

Khusru had done. According to Tabari, prophet 

The Arab Pro- Muhammad had prophesied this turn of affairs, 

pes rop ecy in ^^^ ^-j^-^ prophecy has been taken as one of the 

connection with the . \ • i i 

cavture of Jeru- ^^^7 miracles accompanying the advent of the 

salem. Prophet in Khusru's reign. According to this 

author, during the 20th year of the reign of 

Khusru Parviz the Prophet began preaching at Mecca. He fled to 

Medina at the end of the 30th year. There was hardly a day since 

53 The Dechne and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ed. of 1844, Vol. III. 
p. 249. 

5* One cannot understand well, why Gibbon should call this warfare 
" holy " on the part of the Persians, as this was not a reUgious war against the 
Romans as Christians. 

55 Persia (1922) p. 40. 

56 Macan's Edition, Vol. IV, pp. 1992-98. Mohl's small edition. Vol. 
VII, pp. 227-239. 

44 ,- Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 

the birth of the Prophet when God did not show evidences of his 
pi;ophetic mission to Parviz. Tabarl then describes^^ the following 
miraoles of the Prophet which occurred at the court of Parviz. 

(a) The vaults of Khusru's palace of Madain (Ctesiphon) 
fell down twice. Each time the reparation cost one million^^ dir- 
hems. When Khusru asked of his astrologers the signification of 
this event, they told him that it portended the coming of a new 

(b) When once Khusru was crossing a bridge, it fell by the 
force of water and he just escaped falling. The reparation of the 
bridge cost 5,00,000 dirhems. 

(c) Once, when Khusru was in his apartment, a person with 
a stick (chub) in his hand came suddenly into his presence and 
said that Mahomed was a true prophet. He added " If you will not 
follow him I will destroy (lit. break up) your religion." He, on 
uttering these words, symbolically broke thestick.^® This person 
was an angel who had come to warn Khusru. 

(d) The people of Eoum (the then Roman Empire, which 
had its capital in Constantinople, known at first as New Pome) 
conspired and killed their king Maurice, who had sent his son 
Theodosius to assist Khusru to regain his throne. Then they placed 
Phocas on the throne. Then on the representation of Theodosius, 
who reminded Khusru of what his father had done for him, Khusru 
sent a Persian army under Farroukhan to the help of Theodosius. 
At the same time, he sent another general Cadran to invade Jerusa- 
lem. This general took the holy city and got possession of the Holy 
Cross which he sent to Parviz. Parviz placed it in his treasure. 

56 56th Chapt. according to Zotenberg. The Persian version of Tabari 
heads this chapter as ^ ^ cy^A. cu)^*-* (Naval Kishore's 
Text, p. 360). 

57 The Persian version gives the figure as one hundred thousand. 

(Naval Kishore's Text, p. 360 1.12). This version further on says 
that the people of Persia were not taken to be the people of the book : — 
(Ibid 1. 14) :— diUuAi ^ lif J^ ) ^^ J^ 1 6JS.k(xK 

Eighteen Remarkable TAings of Khusru Parvi^ 45 

The supporters of the prophet had taken a wager on the subject of 
the result of the war and the prophet himself predicted a victory in 
the end for the Romans, and his prediction began to turn gut suc- 
cessful with the advent of Heraclius ( ^ ^^ ) on the throne 
of the Roman Empire. ^^ 

59 Tabari also describes an embassy of the Prophet to the Court of 
Khusru Parviz. The Persian king tore off the letter from the Prophet, who 
on hearing the news, cursed the king saying : "He has torn asunder his own 

country" [^i)^ \^>^ ^-^ ^')- Naval Kishore's Text, p. 361.1.10. 


I HAD THE PLEASUEE of paying three visits to Kashmir. 
During the last two of these visits, I copied some of the 
mipublished inscriptions of the beautiful valley. 
In my paper, entitled "The Mogul Emperors 
at Kashmir," read before the Bombay Branch 
of the Royal Asiatic Society^, I have 
published the texts and the translations of three of the 
inscriptions — two at Virnag and one on the Dal Lake. In my 
paper, entitled " An unpublished Inscription at the Margalla Pass 
near Rawalpindi," read before this Society^, I have given 
a fourth inscription which belongs not strictly to Kashmir but to 
the frontiers of Kashmir. I submit in this paper, some more 
inscriptions which, as far as I know, are not published as yet. How- 
ever, if they have been pubHshed, I beg to submit, that my copy 
and translation may be kindly accepted as serving the purpose 
of comparison. I request, that they may be taken, not as copies 
made by an expert, specially working on them as an archaeologist, 
but as those of an amateur tourist, travelling with the eye and 
taste of an humble antiquarian. 

Inscriptions on the Mosque of Shah Hamad an. 

The first set of inscriptions which I submit in this paper is 

from the Mas j id of Shah Hamadan in Srlnagar, situated on the right 

bank of the Jhelum between the third bridge, Fateh Kadal, and 

the fourth bridge, Zaina Kadal. The Masjid is known after a 

Mohamedan saint known as Shah Hamadan. 

The original name of the saint was Mir Sayyid 
Shah Hamadan. at- i - i j- - 1. -^ r tt i- • 

All, but, as he came from the city of Hamadan in 

Persia, he was known as Hamadani (i.e., " of 

* This paper \vas sent, through the Bombay Branch, to the Royal Asiatic 
Society, to be read on the occasion of its Centenary. 

1 J.B.B.R.A.S. Vol. 25, pp. 26-75. 

2 Ibid, pp. 325-345. 

A Few Persian hisdriptions of Kashmir 47 

Hamadan")^. Shah Hamadan is said to have come to Kashmir in 
the time of Qutb-ud-din (1373-1398 A.C.) and to have had a great 
hand in Mohamedanizing the country. • 

They say that on the spot where the Masjid now stands, there 

ran a spring which was held sacred by the ancient Pandits of 

Kashmir, and that king Pravarsena II (79-139 

The Masjid. ^'^'^ ^^®* ^^^* *^®^® ^ temple dedicated to 

Kali. On the conquest of Kashmir by the 

Mohamedans, there came to the country many 

Mohamedans of the Sayyid and other reUgious classes, with a view 

to preach Mohammedanism, and, among these. Shah Hamadan was 

the principal one. Among the many sacred Hindu places desecrated 

by the Mohammedan rulers, one was that of this Hindu temple. 

Qutb-ud-din is said to have first built a Masjid over this place, 

using the materials of the temple for its construction. He built it 

in the memory of Shah Hamadan who is said to have died at Pakhali 

near Abbotabad. Sikandar But-shikun is said to have extended 

this Masjid. It was destroyed by fire in 1479 A.D. and was rebuilt 

by Sultan Hasan Shah, with a single storey. Upto this time the 

Mohammedans of Kashmir were all Sunni. Most of them are still 

Sunni. But in the time of Sultan Muhammad Shah, there came 

here a Shiah, named Mir Shams Iraqi. He, with a view to destroy 

this important place of worship of the Sunnis, said to the ruling 

king that he wanted to build a better two-storied Masjid. 

He pulled it down and then did not rebuild it. Thereupon, 

the queen of the Mohammedan king rebuilt it as a centre of the 

Sunni worship. In 1731, it was again burnt and was rebuilt by 

3 Hamadan is the Ecbatana of the classical writers. Herodotus (Bk. 
I., 98) attributes its foundation to the first Median king Dioces. The Pahlavi 
Shatroiha-Airan {vide my translation of the Yadgar-i-Zariran, Shatroiei 
Airan, etc.) attributes it to Yazdajard I. Masudi attributes it to Alexander 
the Great (Ma^oudi, traduit par Barbier de Meynard, Vol. 9, p. 21). Accord- 
ing to some Mohamedan authors, one Hamadan, son of Felewdj, son of Sem, son 
of Noah, founded it. {Dictionaire Geographique de la Perse, par B. de Mej-nard). 
According to Mustawfi, Jamshed founded it, and Dara of Dara rebuilt it 
(Ibid). The saint is generally spoken of as Shah Hamadan (i.e. King Hamadan), 
because some of the M^ohammedan saints are spoken of as Shah. Cf. The 
practice of the Parsees addressing their priests as Padshah (king). 

48 ( A^ Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

Ab'ul Barakat Khan. Thus reconstructed, it stands up to now. 
Like the Juma Masjid it is entirely built of wood. As large 
wooden structures, all built of wood, these two Mas j ids, especially 
the Juma Masjid, are worth seeing. The old structures of the 
Masjid having been twice burnt and once pulled down, the 
Persian inscriptions must be taken to be as old as only 1731 A.D. 

There are two groups, of Persian inscriptions on this Masjid 
of Shah Hamadan. One is on the outside of the Masjid, over and 

near the door-way, and the other inside the 

The Outside qibla-gah or arch of worship. Kev. Loewenthal ^ 

the ^^^Masiid. ^^^ published the inscriptions of the first 

group, i.e., those which are outside on the 
entrance.' So, I do not give them here. Here and there, I may 
translate them a little differently, but that is not a very important 
matter. However, this group of inscriptions require a few obser- 
vations, which I will make here, before giving the second group of 
inside inscriptions, which, so far as I know, have not been 
pubHshed. Eev. Loewenthal has given the outside inscriptions 
in three sets or parts. . I beg to draw attention to the following 
points in connection with these sets, with a view to help those 
who want to examine personally at some time the inscriptions, 
and with a view to give some proper amendations : 

(a) The lines which Kev. Loewenthal has given second in 
his paper (p. 281), which begin with the words ^ ^^_yt^ and 
which give the date of Shah Hamadan's death, stand first in the 

(6) The lines in his second (really speaking the first) set are 
one below another as given by him in his first set and not one by the 
side of another. On the other hand, the lines of the couplets in his 
first (really speaking the second) set are one by the side of another 
and not one below another, as given by him. 

(c) In the case of the third set of lines as given by Rev. Loe- 
wenthal, the two lines in the first row occur on our right hand side 
facing the gate, the lines of the row being one under another. The 

4 «' Some Persian Inscriptions found in Srinagar, Kashmir ". J.B.A.S. 
Vol. 33(1865), pp. 278-90. . 

A Few Persian Inscnptions of Kashmir 49 

lines of the second row beginning with the words ^Ai ^ are 

inscribed on the left hand side. 


(d) Rev. Loewenthal has headed his second set (which in 
fact stands first) on the entrance door of the Mas j id with the words 
^_5-^ cylij fi)'^ {i.e., "the date of his death"). I did not find 

them. During my third visit to Kashmir I visited the Masjid 
three times. The third visit was specially made to ascertain again, 
if the words occurred in the inscription, and I did not find them. 
So, I think, they w^ere put in by Rev. Loewenthal by mistake. 
Possibly, somebody, connected with the Masjid, who accompanied 
him and helped him in copying the inscriptions, as they occasionally 
do when we visit the Masjids and try to read the inscriptions there- 
on, merely said to him in Persian, by way of information, that the 
inscription in question referred to his (Shah Hamadan's) death 
(tarikh-i-wafat-i-wae), and he mistook the words for the inscription 
itself and took them down. 

(e) The inscription begins with the following well known 
Arabic j)ray erformula above the arched door:^»xa* ^'11/*-*' ^^ I '^' f**^. 

(In the name of God, the kind, the beneficent). ^ Rev. Loewenthal 
has not given it. It is below the above Arabic formula, that the 
lines of the first two sets of inscriptions, as given by him, run. 

Now, I come to the second group of inscriptions : those in the 
inside of the Masjid. I give them below. They are not given by 

Rev. Loewenthal, perhaps, because he was not 

The inside allowed to go in, or perhaps because, having 

inscription. h^^n written on the painted wood of the ^lihrab 

of the Qiblah, where it is generally a little dark 
he did not see them. During my two visits to the Masjid, though 
the days were clear and the visits were in the morning at about 
9-30 a.m., I had to send for candles and a ladder to read the 

3 This well-known Arabic prayer formula is in the line of a well-knoun 
Parsi Pahlavi formula, pavan sham-i Yahdn, as also in that of the well- 
known Pazand and Persian formula which precedes many Parsee prayers 

50 A Few Persian Pnscriptions of Kashmir 

The inscription is on the wooden wall opposite to the entrance 

round about the Mihrab or the arch. 

.* (a) The wooden wall containing the Mihrab may be divided 

^ ^ , into three parts from top to bottom. The second 
Names of God , \ \ 

inserted on the or the middle part round the Mihrab has on its 

Milirdh. wooden panel the various names of God such as : 

;.ilii Ij i.e., Powerful ! 
.^(.is ^ ,, Known ! 

^J^^. '^ ,j Concealed ! 

^ b ^ „ Guardian ! 
cU^ u „ Eternal ! 

^-LJ) L-i/U U „ Possessor of Countries ! 

f ^J^ ' J J%^ I; -^ ^ ,, Glorious and Venerable ! 

' ^^J' ^)k - True God! 

"^^^H »j Kelenting ! 

^)^ 5, Lord ! 

j**l«0 „ Beneficent ! 

)<sisi^\j ,, Powerful ! 

)y^ ^i ^, Pardoner ! 

c-^;; „ Merciful ! 

The Persian (^) ^^® following Unes are inscribed on 
inscriptions pro- the three sides of the Mihrab beginning from 
per over the Mih- ^^j^^ ^^ ^^^ -^^^ j^^^^^ ^.^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ 

facing it : 
/T^ J T ^ ^ifi e; ' '^— ^r ' — ^ 


I Jt 

^ U^^ |J ^ (^ ^t-^^ J i:;-? ;:^:' 

6 Probably J^^ ^:^ 

7 This line could not be read as it was hidden under a lamp socket. 

8 According to Professor Sarfraz in a note submitted to the Editor, 
miswritten for <^ ^-^^ 

A. Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir ^ 51 

Tramlation. " 'Ali ^ is like the falcon (shah-baz) of the air (which 
is) without any settled place. Ali, is the king of the world (which 
is) without any sign (bi-nishan). shah Hamdan is like 'All and of the 
progeny (al) of Muhammad. ^^ 'Ali is the very spirit (naqd) of 'All 

and 'All of Hamad an is (as it were) the second 'Ali 

He is above the favours of the corporeal world. That road (i.e., of 
being above worldly favours) is the path (tariq) of shah-e-Hamadan. 
It is the road of shah-e-Hamadan who is second 'Ali." 

(c) The following four lines are inscribed in small letters over 
the Mihrab : 

KJ>^ US' J L^ J ; ; J ^ 1>i^J^ ^^ T r" ^^^ ^_5• I 

Translation. — "Every favour which is excellent^^ in both the 
worlds results from following (pae-ravi) of His HoUness Shah 
Hamadan. Shah Hamadan, who is the Emperor of the World. 
May dust fall on that eye (dideh) which is in doubts (raib) and 
scepticism (about him, i.e., which doubts his piety and power)". 

These four lines are a repetition of four outside lines on the 
entrance which form the first set in Rev. Loewenthal's paper, but 
w^ith one difference, viz., that while the third line in the inside runs 
as : o^ l^ ^ lijl^ Li ^_ j J ^ ) cU^ x Li 

9 Mir Sayyid 'Ali was the original name of Shah Hamadan whose 
name the mosque bears. 

10 ^^Is for cy^i-i: =pure. Here by "the Holy" is meant Muhammad 
the Holy Prophet. Professor Sarfraz suggests the translation of the 
above lines as follows : " The Royal Falcon of the air of Spaceless 
Region is Ah. The King of the traceless World is Ali. The chief of 

Mankind and the family of T. H and the second Ah is AH of 

Hamadan. . . . . That way is the way of (adopted by) Shah Ham- 
adan. That Shah-6-Hamadan who is the second Ali". 

11 'Sabiqa'=pre-excellence, precedence, superiority. 

52 ^ r A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

that on the outside runs as : 

Instead of the word an ke, we have hal/ie, but that does not make 
much difference in sense. 

It seems that they were latterly written in the inside of the 
Mas j id. The fact that they are inscribed in letters smaller than 
those of the other lines seems to show this. Again, below these 
lines we read the words : 

("May it be good in the end. 1208 ".) 
So, it seems that the ouside four lines on the entrance were 

inscribed in the inside, later on, in 1208 Hijri (1793 A.C.) 

(d) The following lines are written over the arch in a straight 

line over the above set of lines : 

15 , ^1 0d oi'C 

Translation. *' His HoHness the generous Shah-e-Hamadan 
said an ayat {i.e., verse) of kindness from ancient sayings, at 
the last breath (i.e., at the time of death), viz.^ ' bismilla alrah- 
man al rahim' {i.e., in the name of God, the kind, the beneficent) 
and (these words) became (his) date.'' 

The Arabic formula of Bismilla gives us 786 Hijri (1384 A.D.) 
as the date of his death. This date (786 Hijri) corresponds with 
the date of his death, given in one of the above mentioned outside 
inscriptions which runs thus : 


l^ ^^] ^^ 


6^ j^ 


) A^ ; 

d^ vj>>aj 

•^fft } 

v^' ^^ 





l^:i- ^ J I ^y^ )^ 'jt ; 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 53 

Translation. — " When seven hundred and eighty-six years 
Hijri passed from the time of Ahmad, the seal of religion, then 
there passed away from (this) transient world to the eternal woriA, 
the Amir of both the worlds of the family of Yasln ".^^ 

(e) The following inscriptions on wooden tablets some of 
which, having got out of their proper position, are nailed, and one 
of which is missing, are found on the top of the above mention- 
ed inscriptions : 

Translation. — " Generous royal falcon !^^ Look towards me 
(who am) a darwish. Look to the condition of myself (who am) 
depressed and heart-broken. However unfit for your kindness and 
generosity I may be, do not look towards me, but look towards your 
own generosity [i.e., if you find me faulty, kindly do not look to 
{i.e., overlook) my faults and out of your own generosity of mind 
be kind to me]". 

(/) Then follow the two Arabic lines with the word Allah, on 
both sides and with the names of Allah, Muhammed, Abubakr, 
Hasan, 'Usman and Ali on both sides. 

The order of the above-said inscriptions over the inner Mihrab 
is in the following order from up to down below : 

( 1 ) An Arabic inscription. 

(2) Another Arabic inscription. 

(3) Then the Persian inscription on wooden tablets, some of 

which, getting loose, have been nailed. 

(4) Then the Persian inscription with large types which run 

up from below from the right hand side and then over 
the top and then run down on the left. 

13 Ahmed was one of the names of Muhammad, and Yasin is one of 
his surnames. 

1* Shah Hamadan is compared to the royal falcon (Shah-baz) and is 
addressed as such. 


54 ^ , ^ Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

(5) Then the inscription in smaller letters, which is also in- 
scribed outside the Masjid on the entrance. 
There is an inscription on the outside of a building which is 
An inscription attached to the Masjid and which stands on 
on an attached the bank of the river above the place held 
building. sacred in honour of Kali. It runs as follows : 


J^ ^ 




(J>vu,| ^\ji 

1 sir 










^ -Ji-f 


'0 Exhalted God ! 


an exhalted 

place oi 

honour (bargah) it is ! It is a place of splendour of lights like 
mountain (Tur)^^. Heaven inquired about the date of its erection. 
The angel said 'bina shud khana-i-nur' (^.e., it was erected as the 
house of splendour). Writer Aziz year 1269." 

The words ;y ^{^ J^^IL give the date as (2+50+1+300 
+4+600-^1+50+5+50+6+200=) 1269. This year 1269 Hijri 
corresponds to A.C. 1852-53. It shows that it is a comparatively 
recent structure. 

There are some later inscriptions on the entrance of the Masjid 
which are not the permanent inscriptions of the Masjid itself, bul 
are rather votive inscriptions written on detached cardboard-like 
papers and pinned on the walls. One of such inscriptions is a copy 
of an inscription at Hazrat Bal, of which I will speak later on. 
Under this quotation of the Hazrat Bal inscription there runs the 
following Arabic line : 

I. e. He who enters this place gets peace. 
A Few Inscriptions in the Jumma Masjid of Srinagar. 

During my visit of the Jumma Masjid on 11th July 1915, 1 
saw the following three inscriptions : 

15 Tur=a mountain. Mount Sinai is especially knoAvn by that name. 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir ^ , 55 

1 . An inscription on the Gate, of the time of Jehangir giving 

the date of the construction of the Masjid after tjie 
destruction, by fire, of the original building. 

2. An inscription of a Farman or Order of Shah Jehan, order- 

ing relief to the people of Kashmir in several 

3. An inscription on a stone tablet, divided into two parts and 

lying in a wing of the Masjid on the right hand side, 
while entering it. 

Rev. Loewenthal gives, in his above mentioned paper, "Some 

Persian Inscriptions found in Srinagar, Kashmir" (e/.jB..'l.*S.,1864,Vol. 

33, No. 3, p. 278 et seq.), the last two of the above 

1. The jnscrip- inscriptions, which he heads as "Inscription on 
tion on the entr- ^ ^ 

ance to the Masjid. and near the Great Mosque." He has not given 

the first inscription, which, as far as I know, is 
unpublished. It is on the very top of the gate. Rev. Loewenthal 
did not give it, perhaps, because it is mutilated, as the result of 
the fire that destroyed the original building. It is written at the 
top of the entrance in three rows, each row containing three misras 
(hemistichs). The right hand portion of the inscription is destroyed 
by wear and tear and by the fire above referred to. It seems that 
the present inscription is what remained after the fire in the reign 
of Aurangzeb. This king, though he rebuilt the Masjid burnt by 
fire, added no inscription to record his work of reconstruction. He 
or his officers, simply got the old inscription of the time of Jehangir 
replaced, however mutilated, on the top of the gate. We do not 
find on the gate the whole of the inscription as I give it. The burnt 
or destroyed portion was given to me orally by a Maulvi in charge 
of the Masjid, who said, that his authority was some \NTitten manu- 
script, in which, perhaps, the inscription was recorded before the 
fire which occurred in the time of Aurangzeb. He said that even iu 
the manuscript referred to by him, some lines were missing. Not 
having seen the manuscript itself, I am not in a position to say, whe- 
ther, as he said, the missing lines are not found in the manuscript. 
I do not find fault with his memory, as he recited the lines pretty 
fluently. I enclose in parenthesis the portion which I did not find 
in the inscription on the entrance, but which was kindly given to 

56 r A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

me orally by him. The last line of the inscription runs vertically 
n^ the left hand side of the inscription. 

ib; y)^ii) j) vj>iw^^ X-Jl; O^^^J eu^Uc 
^1 L_/L» J^ j) .>^J /ij [sU- ^^:5w ^^cii^ jl ,^^ 

'^x^o cy^ — js-t [jl /i J o-^j ^ ;l}^ f^i)^^-! 

^iljy d_Ar j^; jU ^^^ y Jl ^^—i-^ 
P UUj ^ I p Ujl^ 1 j] <yj v^ ^^ 

jX-^f 1«>L.J I ^^v^Aj ^ J J.A:sw (^1>< 

Translation, — "At first, the Jame'Masjid was built by king 
Sikandar the second, and then it was burnt through the destiny of 
God. After some time, Hasan shah who was from his holy 
descent, became the constructor^''' of this Masjid through 
divine guidance. But he erected neither the columns on both sides 
nor the roof^^. Know that they were erected by Ibrahim Ahmad 
Magri. From Hijri nine hundred and nine till the time of Muham- 
mad shah, this paradise-like building became the ornament of the 
Musulman religion. In the year one thousand and twenty-nine 

I'' The beginnings and ends of the lines given here are as they are found 
in the inscription itself. 

17 Ar. Bani, Maker; builder. 

18 Saqf = roof. 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir , » 57 

of the Hijrat of Muhammadi^ on the day of the 'Id of Raiiza 
(Ramazan), it was burnt down for the second time. Malik Haidar 
Ra"is-ul-mulk {i.e., the chief of the country) in the time of Jehangir 
laid its new foundation again on the day of the 'Id of Q urban. 

Malik Haidar, the chief of the country of Kashmir, brought 
it to completion with care. By way of endeavour, /^herad 
{i.e.^ wisdom) is said to be its date.^^ 

We learn from this inscription the following facts : 

1. The Masjid was first built (Hijri 804:^=1401-2 A.C.)by 

Sikandar,^^ a king of Kashmir, who began reigning 
at the end of the 14th Century A.C. 

2. After being burnt by fire it was rebuilt by one of 

his descendants Hasan shah. 

3. Ibrahim Ahmad MagrI ^^ added a portion to the 

Masjid. This was in 909 Hijri (1503 A.C.) in the 
time of Muhammad shah. 

4. On the day of the Ramazan 'Id on 1029 (1619 A.C.) 

it was again burnt down. 

5. Malik HaidUr, in the reign of Jehangir, rebuilt it and 

laid the foundation of the new building, perhaps 
on the very next 'Id-i-Qurban. 

6. The Hijri year 804 (1401-2 A.C.) was the date of 

its first construction. 

Pandit Anand KouP^ thus gives a short history of the 
Masjid. It was— 

"Built originally by Sikandar in 1404 with the materials of a large stone 
temple constructed by King Tarapida (693-97 A.D.). The roof of the four 
surrounding cloisters of the building is supported by two rows of pillars, 372 
in all, the smaller ones measuring above 21 feet in height, while the 
loftier ones under the domes and spires being more than double that height — 

19 Saiyid was a title of the prophet. 

20 The word *^ ;^ (kherad) gives the date as 804, (^= 600 + 

;= 200+^ =4), i.e., 1401-2 A.C. 

. 21 He was known as Sikandar But-shakaii, i.e., the Iconoclast. He 
came to throne in 1394 A.C. 

-2 Magri is said to be a Suni sect of the Mahomedans of Kashmir. 

-3 Geography of the Jammu and Kashmir State, by Pandit Anand 
Koul (1913), pp. 56-57. 

58 < , A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

producing a most imposing effect. The court- yard measures 254 x 234 
feet. There are remains of several stone temples roimd this mosque, whose 
builders are not known. 

" The history of Jama Masjid is of interest and it has passed through many 
vicissitudes. Thrice it was destroyed by fire and rebuilt: once in 1479, 
again in the days of Jehangir in 1619 and once more during the reign of 
Aurangzeb in 1674 ; the present structure dating from the days of Aurang- 
zeb. In the time of Sikhs, it was closed for 23 years and was re- 
opened in 1841 by Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, one of the governors of Sikhs. 
The site of the mosque is considered sacred by the Buddhists also, and even 
now, men from Ladakh visit the Jama Masjid and call it by its old name 
Tsitsung Tsublak Kang. " 

With the help of our inscription, we are able to correct the date 
of the original construction of the Masjid, 1404 A.C. as given by 
Pandit Anand Koul. Our inscription gives the date in the word 
d yi>^ (Mierad, which, according to the memoria technica of abjad 
gives to us, as seen above, the date 804 Hijri). No exact day of the 
month and the month are given in our inscription, but as the Hijri 
year (804) began on 11th August 140P*, it is certain, that the cor- 
responding Christian year must be 1401 or 1402 and not 1404. 

The date of the burning of the Masjid in the time of Jehangir 
1619 A.C, as given by Pandit Anand Koul is supported by our 
inscription, which says that after its second destruction by fire, it 
was rebuilt by Malik Haidar in 1029 Hijri. The Hijri year 1029 
began on 8th December 1619. So the date as given by the inscrip- 
tion corresponds to that given by the Pandit. The date of its first 
re-construction as given by him is 1479 A.C. Our inscription does 
not give the date, but simply says that it was rebuilt by Hasan 
shah, a descendant of Sikandar, the first builder. This Hasan 
shah^^ was a prince of the Koyal family, but he never ruled. M 

As Aurangzeb, on its third re-construction at his hand after its 
third destruction by fire, had not placed any new inscription on the 
Masjid with his date, we are not in a position to check from the 
inscription the date 1674 A.C. as given by Pandit Anand Koul. 

24 Wollaston's Persian Dictionary (vide the Chronological Table at 
the end). 

25 Sikandar came to throne in 1394 A.C, and Zain-ul 'Abidin 
succeeded him in 1417. He was succeeded by his son Haji Khan in 1469 
under the name of Haidar Shah. So Hasan Shah may be one of his 
brothers, (Lawrence, Kashmir, pp. 190-93). 


A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 5^ 

Sir Walter Lawrence, in his account of the Masjid in his very 
valuable book on Kashmir, refers to this inscription and says : 
"Verses on the door of the mosque state that the mosque was ori- 
ginally built by the great King Zain-ul-Abadin.''^^ He Ls not 
correct in this statement. The verses do not speak of Zain-ul-'abidin 
as the first constructor but speak of Sikandar as such. Zain-ul- 
abidin came to the throne of Kashmir in 1417^^ A.C. (820 Hijri). 
Sikandar (But-Shekan) came to the throne in 1394 A.C. (797 Hijri).^ 
Now the date of the first construction given in the inscription, 
as seen above, is 804 Hijri (i.e. 1401-02 A.C). So, evidently this, 
is the time of the reign of Sikandar and not of Zain-ul-'abidln. 

Again, he speaks of its being "finally finished by Ibrahim and 
Ahmad Magre."'"^^ The inscription does not give any waw (^) 
between the two names signifying "and". So, it seems that 
Ibrahim Ahmad MagrI is one name and not two as suggested 
by him. 

This inscription confirms what I have said in my preceding 
paper on "The Moguls at Kashmir" about Haidar Malik or Malik 
Haider : He had a great hand in building some of the public 
buildings of the time of Jehangir. As it was often the case in the 
time of the Moghul Emperors, the literary men of the royal courts 
besides doing their literary work, held some great offices in the state. 
Abu'l Fazl was a historian as well as a great official ; so was Faizl. 
Malik Haidar was a man of that stamp. He was a literary man 
writing a history of his country, and was also, as it were, an officer 
in charge of the Public Works Department of Shah Jehangir's. 
time. In fact, the Maulvi of the Masjid who accompanied me in 
my inspection of the Masjid and its inscriptions, on being asked by 
me as to who Malik Haidar was, used the English word "Engineer" 
about him. In this inscription, he is also spoken of as the Rals-id- 
mulk (i.e. the Chief or the Governor of Kashmir). 

After I had completed the inscription on the top and got down 
from the ladder, I was told that the inscription bore in a corner the 

26 The Valley of Kashmir, p. 290. 

27 Ibid. p. 191. 
23 Ibid. p. 190. 
29 Ibid. p. 290. 

60 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

words f t'Jjt iJ"*^ ^•^- (^ ^^^ ^^"^® ^^ ^^®) nianagement^^ of 
Hariram. As I liad felt exhausted and as it had gone late, I did 
not go up the ladder again to verify whether the words were there. 
But taking it that the words were there, it seems that this Hindu 
Officer may be a superintendent acting under the instructions of 
his head officer Malik Haidar. 

There is on the gate of the Masjid an inscription which has 
nothing to do with the Masjid itself. It is a farman of Shah Jehan 
2. The Inscrip- ordering redress for some grievances of the people 
tion on the Masjid ^f Kashmir. It seems, that it was put up on 
man of Shah ^^^ gate of the Masjid, so that all people attending 
Jehdn. it for worship may read it and be informed of 

the orders. of the king for the removal of their grievances. Rev. 
Loewenthal has given the inscription of the farman with his 
translation.^'^ On my comparing Rev. Loewenthal's copy with 
the original on the Masjid, I found that his copy required about 
18 corrections, but most of these were on trivial and insignificant 
points. On the whole, his work was very well done. In some cases, 
he seems to have intentionally amended the reading, as they seem 
to be the inscriber's error. His text therefore being almost all 
correct, I did not copy the inscription of the farman but carefully 
noted down the small errors. 

A list of amen- \ give below a list of the changes and amendations 

dations in Loe- required to be made in Loewenthal's reading:— 
wenthal s reading. ^ & 

The inscription begins with the usual formal words of invocation 
of God jy^ ) ^ I which Loewenthal has omitted, though 
he has given them in his translation. 

Line 7 — The word ^^^;* farman as given by Loewenthal 
does not occur in the inscription. 

Line 10 — Read ^^^ Ij for c3.a^ u 

Line 10 — Read vj>-^i '^j ^>-j for ow) Jij^ Loewenthal 
-^ seems to have amended the text, and that very properly 

30 The word means rule or dominion. It also means action. So Prof. 
Sarfraz suggests that the name may be that of the inscriber himself. 

31 J.A.S.B. Vol. 33 (1865), pp. 287-290. 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir , 01 

as s^ is unnecessary. We do not find it in the later por- 
tion of the farman, where a similar construction occurs. , 

Line 15— Read ]y ]y^j for ^^, l^c j 

Line 17 — Add j before J^r ; j 

Line 24 — Add ^ before UU; 

Line 24: — Read ^^1 for ^^J 

Line 25 — Read /^j before ♦ JLiuo 

Line 29 — Read >« t^iiA^ for ^^j* ^^iuj 

Line 33 — Read 8«Sxw -yo for ^i-*** o^ 

Line 34 — Read ^^-^ before (►•i r* i^}! jl 

Line 35 — Read Jj y for Jfy (Loewenthal's amended 

reading seems to be correct.) 
Line 37 — Add j before ojo , and after JAj ji 
Line 37— Drop ^ after /^/ ^^ 
Line 38— Read ^;U ^j for ^;^^l,^* (Loewenthal's 

amendation seems to be correct.) 

Line 39 — For H (in figures), read Jt^ ^ vj>^ (in words.) 

Line 39~Read ;iT for ;jT 

As it is an important historical inscription I give here my 
translation for easy reference. 


" God is great ^^ 

"Shah J*ihan, the brave king. 

"A copy of the auspicious^^ Farman (order) of His Majesty 
(who is) Solomon-like in dignity, the second Sahib qiran,^^ which 
was published^^ on the seventh of Ilahl month Asfandarmaz, 

32 Rev. Loewenthal has omitted the words A^ I <wJ I in the text of 
the Farman, though he has translated them. 

33 Sa'adat-neshan= of happy signs. 
3^ Lord of a happy conjunction (of stars). This was a title first 

ipplied to Taimur and then secondly to his successor. 

35 Sharf-i-varud yafte, lit. had the honour of appearance. 

62 f ^ A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

in compliance with the request of the humblest of the dependants, 
^hsan Allah bearing the title of Zafarkhan, in the matter of the 
removal of the wrongs (bid'atha) which were prevalent in the country* 
of beautiful Kashmir, in the time of the previous subahdars and 
wbich were the cause of the adversity of the subjects and inhabi- 
tants of this country. 

" As^^ all our thought of exhalted desire^^ is directed and 
turned towards the contentment of (our) people, we have ordered, 
that several acts, which, within the boundaries (khitta) of beautiful 
Kashmir, were the cause of annoyance to the inhabitants of that 
country, may be cancelled. ^^ Out of all (such) affairs (or cases), one 
is this, that at the time of gathering saffron, they carried away 
(poor) people with violence ( ' unf ), so that they may gather saffron 
(from the plants) and they gave to these people a little salt by way 
of wages. These people are much harmed on this account. We 
have ordered that by no means (aslan) should anybody be molested 
for gathering saffron ; and for that (saffron) which is in the district 
of favoured (sharifa) Government lands (khalsah), the labourers 
shall be made contented and paid their actual (wagi'i) wages ; and 
for that which is in the district in the possession of Jagirdars, the 
whole of the saffron^^ may be given in the stock (jins) in charge 
of the Jagirdar, so that they may gather it in any way they like. 
The second (affair) is this: that in the times of some subah-holders of 
Kashmir, on every kharwar^^ of rice,^^ they took two dams*^ 
on account of fuel*^ and'^* during the rule of I'tiqad khan, 

36 Between the above few lines of heading and this portion, which 

is the Farman proper, Loewenthal gives in his text, the word i^j ^-^ y but we 
do not find it in the inscription itself. 

37 Himmat-i wala nahmat. 

38 (\JL U u-5 Js vJ Loewenthal, has given ^^-^ y instead of <^i ^^ 

39 Loewenthal omits \) after the word t^j't^J 

40 Lit. an ass load. It was "the measure of a hundred Tabriz maundsl 
(Steingass). Loewenthal takes it to be 180 pounds. 

41 Shall =rice in the husk. 

42 Dams=the fourteenth part of a rupee. 

43 Haizam, Avesta aesma (skt. idhma). 

44 Loewenthal has omitted this j • 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir , > 63 

four dams for that purpose were taken on each kharwar. A<, m 
this respect also, much harm resulted to (our) subjects, we have» 
ordered, that our subjects shall be excused altogether from the 
demand of this obligation (wajh) and nothing sliall be tnlcon for 

"Another (affair) is this, that from every village, the Govern- 
ment revenue of which was more than 400 Jcharwars of rice, the 
Governors of that village took two sheep every year, and I'tiqad 
khan, during the time of his subah-ship, instead of sheep, took 
66 dams per every sheep. As in this respect also much harm 
resulted to the subjects, we have wholly ordered that (the impost) 
shall be cancelled, and that neither sheep shall be taken nor cash 
in the matter of this charge ('illat) and ^^ the subjects shall be 
excused from the payment of the money (or obligation)."** 

"Again, I'tiqad Khan during the time of his subah-ship, was, 
showing an average, taking from each boatman (malahi, sea-faring 
man), whether young or old or of tender age, 75 dams, but the old 
practice was that for youth, per head, 60 dams, for an old man 12 
dams and for one of tender age 36 dams were taken. We have 
ordered that putting the former practice into force, the wrong 
(bid 'at) which I'tiqad khaan had committed, shall be known 
as redressed and they shall not act as thereby required 

" Another (affair) is this, that subahdars, during the time of 
fruit (season), appointed somebody of their own (to stay) in every 
(large) garden or small garden, where they expected good fruit, so 
that they may look after the fruit for them {i.e., subahdars) and 
did not allow the owners of the large or small gardens to come in 

^5 Loewenthal omits the j • 

^^ The inscription has a^j ^j:! ^ fj'^^ y but Loewenthal gives 

^7 Loewenthal gives the words as ,^ t^iii^ but, as given in the 
inscription, the word seems to be ^e^ l^axiU {, e. in the inscription there is 
a |» before the final (_$•• As there is no Persian word like muqtazami 
Loewenthal seems to have very properly corrected the reading. 

64 ^ ' A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

possession of the fruit. From this cause, much loss results^^ to 
j;hese people (gardeners), so much so that some (ba'zl)*^ of these 
people have removed (i.e. destroyed their) fruit trees. (So) we have 
ordered that the Subahdar shall make no seizure (qarq) of the 
fruits of anyone's large or small garden. 

" It is necessary that (all) generous governors and efficient^^ 
civil ofl&cers (diwanian) and executive officers of the present times 
or future of the Subah of Kashmir, should know these orders, which 
are required to be obeyed by all (jahan-muta) to be lasting and 
perpetual and^^ give no way to any change or alteration in these 
(above) regulations ; and^^ anybody^^ who will give way to any 
change or alteration, shall be involved in the curse of God and the 
anger of the king. 

Written on date^* twenty-six month Azar Ilahi." 

It is very strange that, though we find in the Farm an, the day 

and the month of its issue (26th of Azar) and the date of its being 

recorded in the books (7th of Asfandarmaz), we 

Farmdn " ^ ^ do not find the year. One cannot understand 

the reason. But let us try to arrive at some 

approximate year. We find from what is said in the wording of 

the heading of the Farman, that it was issued at the request of 

Ahsan Alla^^ Zafar Khan. So let us know something of the life 

of this personage. 

48 Loewenthal gives the word as mirasad but the word in the in- 
scription is mi-rasidah. 

49 Loewenthal has omitted this word. 

50 Kifayat far jam, lit. of sufficient or capable ends or issues. 

51 Loewenthal has omitted this j • 

52 Loewenthal has omitted this ^ . 

53 Loewenthal repeats /^ after A-^ . The inscription properly 
gives f>^^. 

54 Loewenthal gives ^)^\ .^ but in the inscription itself we do 
not find^. 

55 Loewenthal takes Ahsan- Allah to be common words and not a 
proper name. He translates them as " May God be gracious to him." But 
he is wrong, the words form a part of the names, as we will see later on. 

,A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir » ' »j,j 

We learn the following facts of his life from the Ma'athiru-l- 
urruira}^ His name is given there as Zafar Khan Khwajiih 
Ahsan Allah (aIII ^jm^\ r^\j-^ ^^Uwylb). At first, in the 19th 
year" of the reign of Jehangir,^^ he was at Kabul with his father 
Abu-al-Hasan, who was the Subahdar there. He had then the 
Mansab of 1500, the command of 600 troops and the title of Zafar 
Khan. In the last year of the reign of Jehangir, he was on a Mansab 
of 2500 and in the command of 1200 troops. In the third year of 
Shah Jehan's reign {i.e., 1630 A.C.), he took part in the conquest 
of Nasik and Tarbang (Trimbak). In the fifth year of Jehangir's 
reign {i.e. 1632), the subahship of Kashmir was taken away 
from the hands of I'tiqad Khan^'^ and given to his (Zafar 
Khan's) father. He was his father's deputy there. The next year 
(i.e. 1633 A.C.) on his father's death, he was given the Subahship 
of Kashmir. He w^as then given a mansab of 3000 and the command 
of 2000 troops. He was also given the grant ('ata) of a banner 
and drums. In the 7th year (1635 A.C), when the King (Shah 
Jehan) went to Kashmir, he went as far as Bhatbhar ( »|^^ ) to- 
receive him. In the 10th year (1638 A.C), he was sent to Tibet^ 
(^j^jkJ). In the 11th year (1639 A.C), he returned from there. 
In the 12th year (1640 A.C), his Subahship of Kashmir ended, 
and he went to punish the people of Hazarat. He was there with 
Prince Muhammad Murad. He was relieved from the work of this- 

56 The Ma'athiru-1-umara, by Nawab Samsamud Daula Shah Nawaz 
Khan, edited by Maulawi Abd-ur Rahim and Maulawi Mirza Ashraf All 
(1890), Vol. 2, p.706. 

57 i.e., 1624-25 A.C. Jehangir ascended the throne on " Thursday- 
Jumada Thani 20th A.H. 1014 (October 24th 1605)". Jehangir's Memoirs 
translated by Rogers and Beveridge, Vol I, p- 1. 

58 In the Ma'athiru-1-Umara, in the account of the life of Zafar Khan, 
the Mogul kings are not named, but mentioned by their religious appellations. 
Jehangir is spoken of as Jannat-makani (Vol. 11, page 756 1*14). Shah-Jahan 
is spoken of as Firdous Ashiani (Ibid p. 757 1.1) and Aurangzeb as Khuld- 
makani, i.e. exalted to heaven, (Ibid p. 760 1.10). 

59 In the Ma'athiru-1-umara he is spoken of as Itiqad Khan Shahpur 

;^ 8l;i (Vol. 11, p. 757 1.15.) 

60 Here our author gives some account of the growth of com and fruits 
in Tibet. 

66 ^ i A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir , 

expedition in the next year. Being under censure, lie occupied 
n^ post for two years. In the 15th year (1642 A.C.), he was ap- 
pointed Subah of Kashmir for the second time. The King, when 
he, in the spring of the 18th year of his reign, visited Kashmir, 
honoured with his presence the garden of Zafar-abad which was 
made by Zafar Khan. In recognition of his upright conduct 
(husn suluki), whereby he had pleased the subjects and 
inhabitants (of Kashmir), he was given a promotion (izafa) 
of a command of 1000 troops. Then he was promoted in 
mansabship. He was appointed governor of Tatta (in Sind). 
Then he had again to go into retirement ("uzlat). He had 
again risen to the mansab of Rs. 40,000. He died in the 6th 
year of the reign of Aurangzeb in 1073 Hijri. 

We find from this account of the life of Zafar Khan, that Shah 
Jahan visited Kashmir twice, — for the first time, in the 7th year 
of his reign, i.e. 1021 Hijri^^ (1605-1606), and for the second 
time, in the 18th year, i.e. 1032 Hijri (1622-23). The second visit 
is mentioned in the Ma'athiru-1-umara, as having taken place in the 
spring. It seems that Zafar Khan must have drawn the attention 
of Shah Jahan to the exactions of the former Governors of Kashmir 
during the second visit of the king, because according to this book 
it was during the second visit that Zafar Khan made a very favour- 
able impression on the king on account of his upright conduct and 
was given a promotion. Our author mentions in his account of 
the second visit, that the subjects of Kashmir w^ere pleased by the 
rule of Zafar Khan. Again, the Farman speaks of the people of the 
country as sakana ( A^ ) and ra'aya ( ^e^) ) i.e. as inhabitants 
and subjects, and the king wants to please them by redressing 
certain of their grievances. We find, that the Ma'athiru-1-umara, 
while speaking of how Zafar Khan pleased the people, speaks of 
them as raaya and sakana (p. 759 1.15). 

We thus see, that the farman may have been issued by Shah 
Jahan during the second visit, during the 18th year of his re^gn, 
i.e. in Hijri 1032 (A.C. 1622-23). As the visit was in spring, the 
time must be some time after March 1923. 

«i The Hijri year 1021 commenced on the 4th March 1612 and the 
Hijri year 1032 on oth November 1622. 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir , , 67 

The Parsi names of the months in the inscription of the farraan 
draw our attention. We know that the names of the months aye 
according to the Ilahi calendar introduced by Akbar. Jehangir and 
Shah Jahan had both continued this calendar. Aurangzeb did 
away with its use. So, the names are not properly understood 
now. The Maulavi who was at the Masjid, when I visited it, did 
not know the origin of the use of these names. On being asked, 
he said that the name Asfandarmaz was Turki and that as the 
Mogul Emperors had some relations with the Turks, they used the 
Turki name. 

I give below a third inscription in the Jame' Masjid at Kashmir. 
it is given by Loewenthal as having existed on a well. At present, 

there exists no well there. On inquiry during my 

3. The Inscrip- yisit in 1918 A.C., I learnt that the well was 

Jame' Masjid. filled up about five years ago, i.e. in about 1913 

and a road has been made over it. However 
fortunately, the inscription stone had been removed from the well 
and during my visit I saw it in the Masjid itself. I give the 
inscription, which can be taken as a revised copy of the inscrip- 
tion, correcting some errors in Loewenthal's Text. 

^.^i| ^Xi ^c. J__^T^^ 

^Ulwc^^ ;; '^j^ ^yJ Ao-^ ^ 

J^-- ^x:^jl] ^^^yi '^Jl I*-:' ^1 ^^ 

•3- Loewenthal has omitted this line of invocation. 

^^ A( cordins: to Prof. Sarfraz the word seems to be miswritten for Jjtj 

68 c ^A Few PersioM Inscriptions of Kashmir 

*^T tj^.j A-^ ddS ^jis^ )sUi 

Jl ^SH j ) ]) ^JJ Ij tj ) d_.:i. 

^'a*u^| OOJ ^1 J^ai. .ij^ J^)^ ^S 

^)j^t^ J^^JC"* C>i.*^C ^.^/| 
^_fT A-J^i; /-i> uT^y'^:' 

" God Muhammad. 

'' In tlie name of God, the Merciful, the Kind. (This) well ^^ 
of Divine favour was built by the handsome effort of the most 
humble of humble persons. Mahmud finished this work by the 
guidance of God and difficulty has been relieved. Sincerity of 
intention and truth of purpose from heart and soul have been 
spent on its construction. That every Musulman will wash his 
face from it (its water) is a sufficient honour (for me both) worldly 
and religious. The builder hopes that by (the construction of) this 
well, the account of sins shall be washed off and cleaned, that the 

64 Loewenthal has ^^J^^J^^ which seems to be a printer's mistake. 

65 Chasmah, " source, fountain." 

, A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir^ t 69 

sins of all people may be washed away by this water, because its 
origin is from the sea of knowledge. The income of the rent/of 
the shops shall go towards the reparation of the reservoir flowing *® 
(or running) over with divine favour. God ! give to the builder, 
by your own hand, by way of honour ^^ exhalting good faith, 
because, by way of entreaty^^ (and) with imploring (lit. weeping) 
eyes, he keeps in daily practice *^ this couplet of his teacher. 
When, in the very beginning, you have made my name Mahmud, 
God ! let it, in the end (also) be Mahmud (lit. praised). In the sea 
of thought, for the date of this happy structure ^^ this has gone 
current (lit. informed). Khazr said : "Jari faiz-i trio, had (i.e.. 
May my favour remain continuous). wise man ! write this as its 
structure's) date. 

God ! ^^ Pardoner ! ^^ forgive the builder ^^ and his 
father.7^ Year 1152." 

Loewenthal gives the date as I ♦^f (1052) in the text of 
the inscription, and 1056 in his translation. Both the dates are 
wrong. The date 1056 in translation is evidently wrong, as he 
seems to have read the Persian numeral f two for *1 six. As 
to 1052, that also is wrong, because the chronogram of the date 
J Ij Le ^^jAX9 ^^) U. gives 1152 as the date and not 1052. I think 
that Loewenthal seems to have omitted to read the first number 
* one ' and seems to have taken a nuqtah under a Persian letter in 
the line above to be a figure for a zero and so read I ♦^f (1052) for 
I I ^r (1152). The above chronogram thus gives the date as 1152- 
(^=3, 1=-1,;=200, ;_5.=10, l«^=80, ^=10, o5=800, *=40, 
1=1, v=2, 1=1, ^=4). 

The builder of the well, Mahmud, referred to in the above 
inscription, was, as I was told at the Mas j id, one (^j^s-* /-^'^ 
x^j^ »J»J*>) Khwaja Mahmud Dideh-mari. I was told, that 
he is referred to in a book called Tarlkh-i- Hasan. He was a 
merchant and had also built a tank in Qariah-i Chera in the 

66 Jarayan, "flowing or running.'* 

67 Tafazzul. 6S utija. 69 Ward, "practice of speaking 

70 Bunyan. 71 Allahum God. 

72 Ghifar " Pardoner, God." 73 Al bani. 74 Al Walid. 

70 < 4 -^^^ Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

province (paragneh) of Cheharat ( ^ )^^ ). He was known 
asvMahmud Didah-mari from the name of his place. I was told 
that the name of the place was connected with the visit of, and 
stay at, the place by Nur Jehan. She was spoken of as the Dideh 
(eye) for her beauty. 

An Inscription at Hazrat-Bal. 

The Shrine of This shrine is situated on the Dal lake. As said 
Hazrat Bdl. by Sir W. Lawrence : ^^ 

*' The sanctity of Hazrat Bal is due to the presence of one of the Prophet's 
hairs, which was brought to Kashmir from Medina by Saiyid 'Abdullah in 
1111 A.H. Saiyid 'Abdullah sold the hair to a merchant, Nur Din, for one 

lakh of rupees, and Nur Din exhibited the relic in Srinagar 

Four other shrines in Srinagar boast that they possess a hair of the 

Prophet The hairs are exhibited six times in the year at the 

various shrines, but the villagers all go to the Hazrat Bal shrine." 

I had the pleasure of seeing it in the month of May or June 
during my second visit to Kashmir. The following inscription 
in the Shrine refers to the hair : 




^ 1; ^^^^^ 



vj>»*u .3 *3^ 



\ 'ii\ 


^ 6jy ^/^^ 

S^ <r^ 





^J^ 1 1 1 1 

"To the needy, at the time of their solicitation, the hair of the 
Prophet of Arabia is a help. A guardian angel (hatif) said to one, 
as the date of its arrival, 'Kashmir became Madineh by the hair 
of the Prophet.' Hijri 1111." 

The last Une forming the chronogram thus gives us the date of 
the arrival of the hair from Madineh as 1111 Hijri (1699 A.C.) : 

^ (_5-^ j) <^^J ylj^c^^jMJSJ^ ::=5704-109+306+8+56+62 


It is said of the above Nur Dm (^6J]j^ ^)^ ) that 
he lived in a village named Ishkhari. He had gone to Bijapur for 
trade, and while there, had purchased the hair from a Saiyid, who 

75 The Valley of Kashmir, p. 299. 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 7 1 

said, he had brought it from Madineh. The hair was kept at first 
in the garden of Sadiq-khan ( ^^ ^^ 6 *^ ^ ), who was a gr^t 
minister of the reign of Jehangir. He was a pious Mohammadan 
and had built the monastery of Shaikh Wajlhu-d-din at Ahmed- 
abad."^^ The hair was placed in a building in the garden of Sadiq 
Khan on the Dal lake and the place took the name of " Hazrat 
Bal, i.e., " the place (bal) of the Hazrat (Prophet)." The word 
bal may be taken to be arable bal meaning 'heart soul' or perhaps 
it is P. bal meaning ''the hair on the pubes" (Steingass. In Sans- 
krit also bal ^[^ is hair. 

We read the following inscription on a prominent place of 
Hazrat Bal : 

"May Dust be on the head of that person who is not (considering 
himself as) the dust of the door of him, i.e., Muhammed-6-*Arabi 
{i.e., of Arabia) who is (the source of) honour to both the worlds." 
An Inscription on a Bridge at Renawari. 
We find the following inscription on a bridge at Renawar 
on our way to the Dal lake by boat : 

" The sculptor had written on a stone : ' The world is not 
faithful. You be cheerful. Even if you gather (in life) the 
whole world you will not carry (on death) two grains of 
poppy; " 

76 See Memoirs of Jehangir, by Rogers and Beveridge, I., p. 425. 

77 We find this inscription quoted in a votive tablet at the Masjid of 
Shah Hamadan. 

72 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 


The year 1915, the year of my third visit to Kashmir, was a 
year of scarcity. The rain had kept off. I would have ordinarily 
^ , M Hd- visited this Masjid, but I was specially drawn 
and a Rain cere- towards it by a rain-imploring ceremony, which 
mony connected lasted for several days and which I saw first on 
with his name. ^ , -r -,^.^0 i i ^ t- ^ t, i 

8th June 1918 on the banks 01 the Jhelum near 

the mosque of Shah Hamadan. I saw a number of Mohammadans 
filling up gharrahs (water-pots) with water from the river Jhelum. 
They got these pots blessed at the Masjid and carried them to a tank 
near Hari Parbat, a hill fort of Akbar. The tank was near the tomb 
of Pir Makhdum. I was told, that all the Mohammadans of Kashmir, 
male or female, old or young, adults or children, would thus, at 
their leisure, carry water from the Jhelum and pour it in the above 
tank. At least, one member of each family must be one of such 
carriers. They did so for a number of days, till the tank was full. 
When I visited the tank on the 10th of June, it was a sight to see 
a number of people, devotionally carrying the water from different 
directions and trying to fill up the tank. It then still wanted a few 
feet to be filled up. 

The water could be brought from any part of the river or lake, 
but they thought it meritorious to take it from the river near the 
mosque of Shah Hamadan. Monday and Friday were the days 
when they most did the work of carrying the water. It was Monday 
when I visited the tomb of Shah Makhdum and the tank near it. 
So, I saw hundreds of people coming to the tank with their water- 
pots and emptying them there. Some came in processions with 
banners and drums. Having poured the water into the tank, they 
appHed the water of the tank to their eyes. The tank is about 30 
square feet. The ceremony of filling it up had begun about 5 or 
6 days before my visit and they expected that it would take still 
about 5 days to fill it up. 

The ceremony was supposed to be a rite of humiliation before 
God asking for forgiveness of sins, if that was the cause of His 
displeasure and of His keeping off the rain. It is in keeping with a 
•recent inscription put up there as a votive inscription (1326 Hijri). 

A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 73 


"Have a look on the miserable condition of a helpless sinner — 
a look whereby the darkest of dust becomes (briUiant) like gold." 

The reason, why Shah Makhdum was specially invoked and 
why the tank near his tomb was the scene of a rain-ceremony, 
seems to be, that he had once uttered a curse in the matter of 

"He had no honour in his own village (Tajar), and his companions 
laughed at his preaching and his prophecies, and insisted on his taking his 
share in the corvie of the village. Makhdum Sahib or Hazrat Sultan as 
he is often called, left Tajar and cursed his people — they should want water 
not only for their crops, but even for their drink. The curse came true 
for Tajar and Zainagir are dry to this day ."78 

It was during this visit that I copied the following 
inscription on the gate of the tomb of shah Makhdum: 

-• *** i* 

U ^ULsw J'c )d cJ>jL» ^^^ *3dLM J [jo 

irvr ^ — 


" The door, the splendour and the (awe-striking) light (of this 
place come) from the world illuminacing sun (Meher). I keep 
myself in this condition that the collyrium of my eyes is from the 
dust of your door {i.e. Ihumihate myself). I said to myself : 'I wish 
to bring the pearl of the date in my hands.' The angel raised 
his hands for prayers. Uttering 'Amen', I said : 'God is exhalted. 
The door of my respected great ones should be like this, Grod ! 

"8 Lawrence, op. cit., p. 289. 

74 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 

May my door be opened (lit. conquered) in every matter by (the 
l\elp of) this door {i.e. May my visit of the door of this 
Ziyarat-gah always help me in every direction)'." 

The date is the date of the last reparation of the Masjid. The 
last line of the inscription serves as the chronogram of that date 

♦ The figures are as follows : — 

1 = 1 J = 30 «=5 ^ = 10 v=-2 1 = 1 ^=4 

^ = 2 )=7 ^=10 ^-=50 ^=4 ; = 200 
^ = 80 cy = 46o ^^S v=-2 1=1 ^ = 2 
= 40 1=1 

The whole gives 1272 as the date. 




By Dr. Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

[Read on Uh February 1926.] 



Last year, when I was in England, I had the pleasure of 
reading a Paper before the Folklore Society of London, on 17th 
June 1925, on the subject of *' The Vish-kanya ( f^^-q^j^^ ) 
or Poison- damsel of Ancient India, illustrated by the story of Susan 
Ramashgar in the Persian Burzo-nameh." ^ The subject of 
that paper was suggested to me by an inquiry in January 1924 
from Mr. N. M. Penzer through Mr. R. E. Enthoven, asking for 
some information on Poison-damsel in Indian Literature. Mr. 
Penzer himself had gathered information from Indian books, but 
he wanted some further information, if available. Now, since 
his first inquiry, Mr. Penzer has published the second volume 
of his "Ocean of Story," ^ and it is the third Appendix of this 
volume, for which he had sought further information from the 
members of my Anthropological Society, that has suggested to 
me the subject of this paper. 


What is a Poison-Damsel. 

It is said of an ancient king that, as one of the means of 
defence against an invading enemy, " he tainted, by means of 

1 A brief paper on this subject was at first read before my Anthro- 
pological Society of Bombay and that paper was subsequently developed and 

before the Folklore Society. 

2 The Ocean of Story, being C. H. Tawney's Translation of Soma- 
a's Katha Sarit Sagara (or ocean (4 streams of story), now edited with 

Introduction, fresh Explanatory Notes and Terminal Essay by N. M. 
Penzer, in ten Volumes, Vol. II, Appendix III, p. 275. 
J.B.B.R.A.S. Vol TTL 

76 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

^ poison and other deleterious substances, the trees, flowering 
creepers, water and grass all along the line of march. And He 
sent poison-damsels as dancing girls among the enemy's host, 
and he also despatched nocturnal assassins into their midst." ^ 
We find, that even in modern warfare, they resort to some such 
means. For example, the excreating gas, first discovered by the 
Germans in the late great world war of 1914-18, was a means 
of that kind.* The jets of the gas poisoned the air on the side 
of the enemy and blinded them. 

Now, as tothe Vish-kanya or a Poison- damsel, she was a beauti- 
ful young girl employed by a person to bring about the death of 
an enemy. She enticed him in her trap in some way or another 
by her fascinating beauty. From all that we read about them, we 
learn, that these Poison-damsels were of various types. I give 
below, what I have said of these various types in my above previous 
paper : — 

(1) " A poison-damsel, in the original sense of the word 

seems to mean a damsel who does harm deceitfully 
in some way or other to another person. 

(2) " She is one, born under an inauspicious configuration 

or conjugation of planets. So, she does harm to 
one who marries her. It is this view, that seems 
to have led, and even now seems to lead, many Indian 
parents to. resort to an astrologer to ascertain, 
whether the planets, under the influence of which 
their children are born, are of the same conjunction 
or not. The happiness or otherwise of marriage 

3 Ibid. 1, p. 275. 

* It appears from the Shah-nameh of Firdousi that there was some- 
thing of this sort in remote ancient times. For example, King Kaus and a 
number of his army were blinded by the enemy when they invaded the 
country of Mazandaran, etc. It was after some time that Rustam reUeved 
them, and, procuring an antedote cured them (Warner Brothers' Shahnama, 
Vol. II, p. 40 ; Kutar Brothers' Gujarati Shah-nameh, Vol. II, p. 99 ; Dastui 
Minocheher's Gujarati Shah-nameh, Vol. I, p. 538 ; Mohl's small edition, Vol. I, 
p; 398 ; Rogers' abridged Shahnama, p. 132. For the Persian Text, vide 
Macan's Shah-nameh I, p. 240 ; VuUer'a Sohihname I, p. 329.) 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison- Damsel 77 

depends upon that. The custom is spoken of as / 
raf jovrdvvi, (^i^ ^n^iq<l) ^.e., to get the route (of 
the planets) seen (by an astrologer). 

(3) ''A damsel who is, in some way or other, so much poisoned 

or infected with a disease, that she is likely to 
convey her poison or infectious disease to the person, 
who has intercourse with her or who comes into 
some form of close contact with her, and to bring 
about his death. A woman infected with a venereal 
disease is a poison-damsel of this kind. 

(4) "A damsel who has actually saturated her body with 

gradual doses of poison, and who, therefore, is in 
I a state believed to be likely to convey the poison of 

I her body, so saturated, to another person who comes 

; into contact with her. The Gesta Romanorum (11th 

tale) is said to refer to the story of an Indian queen, 

sending a poison-damsel to Alexander the Great and 
I of Aristotle frustrating^er plan. This poison-damsel 

seems to be of this kind. 

(5) "A damsel who treacherously captivates the heart of 
j a person, and then actually gives him some poison 
' in food or drink." 


The Story of Alexander and the Poison-Damsel. 

Mr. Penzer gives the story of Alexander the Great and the 
Indian Poison-damsel, on the authority of a Latin work called 
iSecretum Secretorum, De Secretis Secretorum or De Regimene 
Principum. The book had some other titles also : "It purported 
po be nothing less than a collection of the most important and 
secret communications sent by Aristotle to Alexander the Great 
when he was too aged to attend his pupil in person. Such letters 
had been circulated from the earliest times, but here was a treatise 
containing not only thctessence of political wisdom and state-craft, 

78 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

^ but regulations for the correct conduct of body and mind, and 
an insight into the mysteries of occult lore." ^ ,| 

Mr. Penzer thus speaks of this work : " The Secretum, how-^ 
ever, is not reckoned among Aristotle's genuine works, but as one 
of a number of unauthenticated treatises which, reflecting as it 
does theories and opinions contained in his famous philosophical 
writings, was readily accepted as a work of the Master himself." ^ 

Now, as to the contents of this book, which he calls " a certain 
Pseudo-Aristotelean work," ^ specially referring to the subject 
of our paper, Mr. Penzer speaks thus : 

" According to the text, Aristotle is warning. Alexander 
against entrusting the care of his body to women, and to beware of 
deadly poisons which had killed many kings in the past. He 
further advises him not to take medicines from a single doctor, 
but to employ a number, and act only on their unanimous advice. 
Then, as if to prove the necessity of his warnings, he recalls a great 
danger which he himself was able to frustrate. ' Remember/ 
he says, * what happened when the King of India sent thee rich 
gifts, and among them that beautiful maiden whom they had fed 
on poison until she was of the nature of a snake, and had I not 
perceived it because of my fear, for I feared the clever men of those 
countries and their craft, and had I not found by proof that she 

5 Ibid, p. 287. We find an instance of such "Most important and secret 
communications sent by Aristotle to Alexander the Great " in the letter of 
Dastur Tansar to the King of Tabaristan. Alexander the Great had not only- 
destroyed the ancient literature and religion of Persia, but had also thought 
of putting to death the aristocracy of Persia with a view, that thereby, he 
might have no fear of a powerful rise in revolt by the Persians when ha 
advanced to India. But it was Aristotle who, by a letter, dissuaded him from 
doing such a base act. ( Vide the Journal Asiatique, Neuvi^me Serie, Tome 
III, Mars-Avrll 1894, pp. 185-250, and Mai-Juin 1894, pp. 502-555). Vide, for a 
brief account of this letter, my " Glimpse into the work of the B. B. R. 
Asiatic Society during the last 100 years, from a Parsee point of view," pp. 
33-35; vide for an account of this letter my Iranian Essays (Gujarati) Part 
III, pp. 127-44. 

« The Ocean of Story, op cit. Vol. II, p. 287. 

7 Ibid. p. 282. 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel 79 

.vould be killing thee by her embrace and by her perspiration, she 
t.'ould surely have killed thee'." ^ 


JThe Source or Sources of the Pseudo-Aristotelean 
Work, the Secretum Secretorum. 

According to Mr. Penzer,^ the Latin work appeared in the 
Iftb century, and there were two recensions, a longer and a 
brter one, both resting upon Greek originals. "A Syrian freedman 
under the Khalifa al-Ma'mun (circa 800)," named " Yahya ibn 
Batrlq, i.e., John, the Son of Patriciuss," had first discovered the work 
in " the Temple of the Sun dedicated to ^Esculapius (Asklepios). It 
^as written in letters of gold, and he immediately translated it first 
into Rumi (Syriac) and then from Rumi into Arabic." The Greek 
text does not exist. There is also a Hebrew version, which is 
quite as old as any of the complete texts. It is now almost universal- 
ly recognised as the work of Judah Al-Harlzl, who flourished in the 
early thirteenth century. "^^ Later on further chapters were added. 

Then Mr. Penzer says : " The medical knowledge displayed in 
the enlarged chapters places the author in the eighth or ninth century, 
but when restored to their original proportions, we can reduce the 
date by at least a century. Scholars are agreed that there is no 
Greek text in existence, and no proof that it ever did exist. Now 
if we look more closely into the longer Arabic and Hebrew texts, 
we find that the background of the book is wholly Eastern — Persian 
and Indian — while, on the other hand, there is hardly a mention of 
Greece. If any analogy or simile is needed, it is the sayings and 
doings of Persians or Indians that are quoted. The allusion to 
chess, 1^ the occurrence of Eastern place-names and animals, all 
tend to point to the influence under which the Secretum really 
originated. Among similar Eastern works, whose history is now 

8 Ihid. p. 291. 

9 Ihid. pp. 287-88. ^ Ibid. p. 289. 

10 For this subject of the Origin of Chess in the East, vide my paper 
before this Society entitled " Firdousi on the Indian Origin of the Game of 
Chess" (Jour. B.B.R.A.S. XIX, pp. 224-36. Vide my Asiatic Papera, 
Part I, pp. 85-98). 



80 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

\ fairly completely known, may be mentioned Syntipas, Kalilah 
and Barlaam and Josephat.^^a -^^ these slowly migrated west* 
wards, changing their character with their environment, and 
readily adapting themselves to any new purpose for which they 
might be wanted." 

Now, I agree with Mr. Penzer that the origin of the Pseudo- 
Aristotelian work, Secretum Secretorum is Eastern — Persian and 
Indian. As far as we know, no Indian version of the story of 
Alexander and the Poison-damsel of India is known to exist. So, 
we have no materials to compare the Western version of the story 
with any Indian version. But I beg to show in this paper that we 
have a Persian version of the story giving us pretty sufficient 
materials for comparison. Again, that Persian version seems to 
have come, like the three stories above referred to, from the Pahlavi. 

The Pahlavi Origin of some Indian Stories migrating 
TO THE West. 

, We know that all the above three stories which originated 
in India, passed to the West through Iran or Persia and through the 
Pahlavi books of Iran. 

(a) For the first story of Syntipas (Sindibad), I beg to refer 
my readers to my Paper before this Society, entitled "The so- 
called Pahlavi Origin of Sindibad-nameh or the Story of the Seven 
Wise Masters. "^^ In that paper, I have shown that, though we cannot 
directly trace the story to any extant Pahlavi book, we can trace 
it to the story of Kaus, Soudabeh and Siavakhsh in the Shah-nameh 
of Firdousi, who had taken most of his materials from Pahlavi. 

(b) As to the second story of Barlaam and Josephat, I will 
quote here in full what I have said on this subject in my Paper 
before my Anthropological Society, entitled " The German Kaisar 
William in the Incantations of the Oraons of Chota Nagpur and the 
Iranian King Faridun in the Incantations of the ancient Persians. "^^ 

lOa j^or this story vide Barlaam and Josephat, by Joseph Jacobs (1816). 

11 Jour. B.B.R.A.S. XVIII, pp. 206-12. Vide my Asiatic Papers, Part 
II, pp. 45-52. 

12 Jour. Anthrop. Sty. of Bombay Vol. X pp. 615-35. Vide my 
i' r 11 ropological Papers, Part II (pp. 234-54) pp. 241-42. 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison- Damsel 81 

'* The Christian story of Barlaam and Josephat, is believed by ^ 
ihany Christian scholars to be the Christianised version of the 
legendary history of Buddha Sakya Muni, one of whose titles is 
Bodhisatva. Prof. MacDonnel says : ' That the founder of an 
atheistic oriental religion should have developed into a Christian 
saint is one of the most astounding facts in religious history.' ^^ 
We have an interesting account of this transference in Jacob's 
Barlaam and Josaphat.^'* The author of this book, in his 
learned Introduction, presents interesting evidence to show that, 
in about the 5th or 6th century, Buddhistic legends and 
doctrines^^ went to Syria and got mixed up with the Christian 
dogmas and legends prevalent there. The Indian Zarman- 
ochegas^^ by name, a native of Bargosa^^ referred to by 
Strabo as having gone to the court of Augustus Caesar 
from Barygaza from the Indian king Porus,^^ the ' sovereign 
of 600 kings,' ^^ and who is said to have immortalized himself 

13 Prof. MacDonnel's History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 420. 

14 Barlaam and Josaphat, English Lives of Buddha, edited and intro- 
duced by Joseph Jacobs. 

15 " The pith of what this author says is this : Both Buddha and Christ 
represent the ideals of a whole continent. Buddha represents Asia's ideal 
" To be," while Christ represents that of Europe " To Do." Buddha is a 
contemplative Sage, Christ a beneficient Saint. But, though their aims are 
different, their methods are similar. They both fight against the world. 
The similarity of the schemes of both consists of the following : The legends 

i of both present parallels of (a) the Annunciation, (6) the Massacre of the 
Innocents, (c) the Temptation in the Wilderness, (d) the Marriage at Cana, 
(6) the Walking on the Water, (/) the Transfiguration, (g) Again, both taught 
by parables, some of which are well-nigh the same, e.g., those of the Sower, the 
Prodigal son. Seed and Soil, (g) Both lay stress upon the Spirit against the 
Letter and upon the opposition between Riches and Spirituality and upon 
inward Purity, (h) Both recommend a Brotherhood or Church. (») Even the 
formalities of some of their rituals is the same." 

16 " Supposed to be another form of Zarmanus, or Garraanus, another 
form of Sarmanas, a sect of Indian philosophers." 

17 "Another form of Barygaza which is Baroatsch, Barutsch or 

18 « A general name of Indian kings." 

18 " Strabo, Bk. XV, Chap. 1. 73. Hamilton and Falconer's Trans- 
lation, Vol, Til, p. 119." 

82 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

^by burning himself to death at Athens, seems to have been a Bud- 1 
dhist. His fame, as an Indian, who, though in a prosperous stat^ 
of life, burnt himself to escape a possible or probable calamity in,|| 
future, may also have drawn the attention of the people at Judea. 

" Now Mr. Joseph Jacobs traces the origin of the Christian 
story of Barlaam and Josephat through different successive sources. 
He gives a table giving the pedigree of the works giving the story 
from earlier times to the present times, and shows, that it may 
have come down from an Indian original through its Pahlavi 
version, now lost. From Pahlavi it must have gone to Arabic, 
in the same way as the story of Kalila and Damna has passed into 
that language. From Arabic, it went through various ways to the 
various sects of the Christians. It is supposed that the name 
Joseph or Josaph is a variant of Bodhisattva, a word used for ' the 
man who is destined to become a Buddha '^^. It began to take that 
shape while passing through Persia. Bodhisattva became Budhaspa. 
Mr. Jacob thinks, that the " aspa " form at the end is a favourite 
form with the Persians at the end of many names. For example 
take the names of the members of Zoroaster's family : Pourushaspa, 
Paitaraspa, Haehaedaspa. So Bodhisattva became at first Bud- 
dhaspa. It may be so ; but I think, it is more probable that the 
change is due to the fact, that the same letter in Pahlavi can be 
read as ' v ' and 'p.' I ani inclined to trace the equations as 
follows : The Indian Bodhisattva or Buddhisattva, when written 
in Pahlavi, could also be read Budhisatpa, which, by dropping the 
' t ' became Budhisapa, and then, possibly, through the fondness of 
the Persians for the word " aspa " became Budhaspa. Then, on 
coming into Arabic, the letter, ' b ' owing to a change in the 
nuhehs, became ' y ' and the word became Yudasp. Y often 
becomes j and p becomes f. So Yudaspa became Joseph. In 
Josaphat, perhaps the 't' that had disappeared, re-appeared 
changing places. I would place the equation in Pahlavi and 

Arabic characters as follows : ^^c^ = Pahl. -**i,ti'-»^» = Pahl. 

20 «* Barlaam and Josaphat, by Joseph Jacobs, Introduction, p. 
XXXV. " 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel 83 

Whatever be the way, ia which the story of Buddha went to th,^ 
» West, the fact is, that Buddha, as a great and pious ethical teacher, 
was somehow sanctified in the Christian Church. In the Greek 
€hurch, also known as the Orthodox Eastern Church, his feast 
■day is 26th August. In the Martyrologium of the Roman Clxurch, 
it is 27th November. It is said that even a Church (Divo Josaphat) 
dedicated to him at Palermo." 

(c) As to the origin of the story of Kalileh and Damneh, 
town in the West as the story of Bid-pai, it is so well known, that 
ineed not dilate upon it. The story passed from India to the West 
ia Iran and through Pahlavi, and we know well, that the Persian 
Anvar-i- Sohili is a later form of it. 

Like the above three stories, the origin of our story in question 
is Indo-Persian. Its migration is in the following order : Indian — 
Pahlavi — Greek — Syrian — Arabic — Latin. Or, it may be in 
the following order : Indian — Pahlavi — Arabic — Latin. The story, 
on going to the West, had been given in the following various 
languages : Arabic, Latin, Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, Proven9al, 
Dutch, French and English. 

A Few points collected from various versions. 

We collect the following points from the above Y-ersions of 
Alexander's story as given in an old Hebrew version of Aristotle's 
story : 

1. An Indian king sent rich gifts to Alexander. 

2. One of the rich gifts was a " beautiful maiden" whom they 
had fed on poison until she was of the nature of a snake. 
According to some Arabic texts, it was the mother 
of the king who sent the damsel, and, according to 
others, it was the queen who sent her. 

3. Aristotle saved Alexander from the grasp of the maiden. 

5. According to an Arabic text, Aristotle knew the practices 
of Indian kings and physicians in such matters. 

6. The maiden was one " who thought to rouse his (Alexan- 
der's) passion" (Spanish version, Perzer op. cit. p. 292). 

84 ' ' Jivanji Jamshedji Modi | 

7„ Aristotle was *' versed in astronomy." By " astronomy "^^ 
what seems to have been meant is "astrology,'* 
whereby he foresaw the fraudulent strategem of the , 
Indian king. f 

8. The damsel was brought up on poison from infancy. 

She gave ' poisoned words ' — ^that is to say, the 

breath from her mouth when speaking was poiso- 
nous — and her look also brought on sudden death. . . A 
master saw through this and gave the king a herb to 
put in his mouth, which freed him from all danger. 
(German version by Frauenlob, a German poet of the 
13th Century, Penzer op. cit. p. 292). Mr. Penzer says : 
" The idea of the miraculous herb is entirely new and 
seems to have been an invention of the poet " (p. 293). 

9. "A certain king was once informed by a sooth-sayer 

that a child, named Alexander, had just been born 
who was destined to be his downfall. On hearing 
this discouraging news, the king thought of an in- 

•genious way in which to get rid of the menace, and 
gave strict orders for several infant girls of good 
family to be nourished on deadly poison Once 

, the king was besieged by a powerful army and he sent 

this maiden by night into the enemy's camp 

As soon as he (the besieging king) kissed her he fell 

dead to the ground Delighted with the success 

of his experiment, the king ordered the damsel to be 
even better cared for, and nourished with even purer 
poison than hitherto. Meanwhile Alexander, groTVTX 
to manhood, had started his campaigns, besieged and 
conquered Darius, and made his name feared through- 
out the world. Then the king had five maidens be- 
autifully attired, the fifthbeing the poisoned damsel : 

these he sent to Alexander, ostensibly as a mark of his 

love and obedience ...... Alexander rushed 

to embrace her. But Aristotle, a wise and learned man 
of the court, and Socretes, the king's tutor, recognised 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Pmson-Darmel 85 

the poisonous nature of the maiden and would not 1^ 

Alexander touch her Then Alexander had her 

beheaded and her body burnt." (A French prose ver- 
sion of the early fourteenth century, Ibid. pp. 292-293.) 

10. "A wise queen in the land of Sizire discovered by her 

magical art that a son of Olympus, Alexander by name, 

would one day deprive her of her kingdom 

She first procured Alexander's portrait,^^ and seeing 
that his features betrayed a sensual nature, made her 

plans accordingly The queen put " a baby- girl, 

just born," into one of the big eggs of a snake which 
"are as big as bushel baskets and the snake- 
mother hatched it out with her other eggs." The baby- 
girl was fed by the mother snake. ' ' She could not speak, 
and only hissed like a snake, and any one coming near 

her too often either died or fell into disease The 

queen gradually taught her to speak She grew 

into one of the most beautiful creatures in the world 
with a face like an angel." Then, when Alexander arrived 
in her coimtry, the queen " offered him the girl, with 
whom he at once fell in love, saying to Aristotle, ' I ^^^ll 
lie with her'." But Aristotle dissuaded him from doing 
so, saying and proving that the girl was poisonous. 

Aristotle's method of proving that the girl was poisonous is 
iteresting from an Indian point of view, as we hear here various 
stories of snake charmers and snake cures. He first got a poisonous 
snake shut up in a jar, and there and then, with the juice of fresh 
dittany " drew a circle round the jar about an ell away from it." 
Then on the jar being opened, the snake tried to run out, but 

21 Here, there is an indirect instance of an evil influence being exerted 
upon the person by his enemy through his portrait. The behef is still held in 
India by many, and so, we hear of instances of some people being altogether 
averse to being photographed. Vide my paper, entitled " The Indian 
custom of a Husband or Wife not naming his Wife or her Husband " before 
the Bombaj' Anthropological Society, read on 31st August 1921 (Jour, of the 
Anthropological Society of Bombay, Vol. XII, No. 3 (pp. 301-11) p. 316. 
Vide my Anthropological Papers, Part III, p. 129.) 

S6 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

c^uld not go out of the enchanted circle drawn by Aristotle with the 
juice of dittany^^ and soon died. Then Aristotle made the above * 
gill, with two others that were not poisoned, stand in a place and 
similarly drew round them a circle with the juice of the dittany. 
Then, when he called them to come out of the enchanted or magic 
circle, the two unpoisoned damsels ran out, but the poisoned one 
could not, and, shortly after, feeling choked, died like the above y 
mentioned snake ^^". m 

In the above particulars of the story, one particular is a direct 
reference to intercourse with the damsel. Alexander wanted to 
liave it and Aristotle prevented him from having it. This has led 
Mr. Penzer to refer to the intercourse being dangerous on account 
of some kind of venereal disease. 


FiRDOUsi's Version of the Story. 

Now, as said above, Mr. Penzer speaks of the back-ground 
of the Western story as Eastern — as Persian and Indian. As far 
as we know, we have no Indian book or writing to show posi- 
tively that the back-ground is Indian. It may be Indian or it may 
not be so. But we have enough literary materials to show, that it 
is Persian. AVe find what may be called a trace of the story in 
Firdousi's Shah-Nameh. Firdousi describes the story, not the 

22 Dittany is " a plant growing in abundance and perfection on Mounts 
Dict^ and Ida in Crete." It is " the Dictamnus ruber or albus. Its leaves 
in smell resemble lemon-thyme and yield an essential oil " (Webster). On 
inquiry from the Professor of Botany in the Elphinstone College, I learn that 
the plant has no known Marathi name and that the plant occurs in the 
temperate Western Himalayas. 

23 In the above story, we find a child fed by snakes. Cases of 
iiuman children being fed by animals, at times by ferocious animals, are said 
to have occurred in India. I know the case of a wolf- boy who was so fed by a 
she-wolf. I myself had seen the boy in Agra. ( Vide my Paper before the 
Bombay Natural History Society, on 7th May 1889, entitled " Recorded 
instances of children nourished by wolves, arid birds of prey." Vide my 
Asiatic papers, Part II, pp. 197-200.) 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poisorh Damsel 87 

rhole story as found in later books, but a trace of the story, Qti 
le authority of Pahlavi writers. 2* Firdousi says : 

There was a wise Indian king named Kaid ( *>i^^). He 

iw continually for 10 nights certain dreams. Nobody in his 

jourt could explain the dreams and he was referred to a learned 

lan named Mehran ( (j '^t-* ), who lived in a wilderness in the 

lidst of wild animals. The king went to the place where Mehran 

lived in the wilderness and narrated his ten dreams to him and 

iked for an explanation. The wise man explained and said, that 

dl the dreams predicted the coming of Sikander (Alexander) from 

'Eoum and Iran, with a large army, under selected officers. The 

king would have no cause to be afraid of him if he presented to 

im the four rare things {char chiz)^^ which he possessed. These 

were : (1) A beautiful girl.^^ (2) A philosopher who revealed all 

le mysteries of the world. (3) A clever physician. (4) A 

ip in which water never got heated, when placed on fire, and 

ras never finished, how much-so-ever people drank out of it. 

'What was predicted by Mehran turned out to be true, and 

Alexander invaded Kaid's dominions and sent him a letter, asking 

him to surrender. The Indian king-^ wrote in reply, offering his 

homage and his above four rare things. Alexander was pleased 

to learn this and he sent his messengers to the court of the Indian 

king to have a description of the four rare things. The Indian 

king then described before the messengers his four rare things. 

He first described the beauty of the girl. From what the king 

Macan's Calcutta Edition 1829, III, p. 1290. Kutar Brothers' Text in Guja- 
rati, Vol. Vll, p. 57. Translation by Dastur Minocher J. Jamaspasa, 
Vol. Ill, p. 291. Translation of Warner Brothers, Vol. VI, p. 91. These 
brothers take the word Pahlavi to be a common name and translate it as 
« Days of Old ". Mohl's small edition, Vol. V, p. 89. 

25 Ibid, p. 1292, 1.20. : 

26 The Pers. word, 'dukhtar' means a daughter, as well aa a girl, a maiden. 

27 Capt. Wilberforce Clarke thinks that this Indian king may be the 
king Taxalus of the Greeks. The Sikandar Nama e Bara, translated by 
Capt. W. Clarke. 

88 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

S8jd, it appears that the girl was not the king's own daughter, as 
we may at first be led to believe by the use of the word ' dukhtar ' 
(daughter, Sans, dohitri). The Indian king, while describing her 
beauty, speaks of her descent as that from a Sepehbud^^ i.e., the 
commander of an army. 

Thereafter, Alexander sent, with a letter,^^ ten of his ministers 
to see the girl and the other three rare things. The Indian king 
welcomed them. They first saw the girl and were struck with 
wonder at her extraordinary beauty. They then wrote, each 
separately in his own words, to Alexander and described the ex- 
traordinary beauty of the girl. Alexander was pleased with what 
he read- and sent a message to them to return with the four rare 
things offered by the Indian king. They did so. The beautiful 
girl (fughistan)^^ shed tears when she left the court of the Indian 
king. Alexander was much pleased to see her and exclaimed 
that she was " the lamp of the world. "^^ He then married her 
with religious rites. 

Firdousi then proceeds to describe Alexander's inspection 
of the other rare things, the philosopher, the physician and the cup. 
It is in the account of his interview with the physician that we 

28 Sepehhud nezdd ast va yazddn parast i. e.. She is descended from a 
commander of an army and is a worshipper of God. M. Mohl. translated this 
line as : " C'est une fille de rois, elle adore Dieu." (Mohl's small ed. Vol. V, 
p. 100). He does not represent the king as speaking of the girl, as " my 
daughter." but speaks of her as one of " royal descent". The word sepih 
means a soldier. 

29 Macan's Calcutta Ed. (Ill, p. 1297) gives the number as ten. So do 
the Kutar Brothers in their Gujarati Transliteration and Translation, Vol. 
Ill, p. 17. Dastur Miriocheher also gives the number as ten. But Mohl gives 
the number as nine (small ed., V, p. 101). 

^^ ^^ tl*wx5 ' The word may be read as " fughistan " and means " a 
handsome person " or as " fugsutan " and may mean " the favourite wife " 
or mistress of the king (Steingass). 

31 Kin (ke in) ast cheragh-i-Jehan." Macan and Kutar Brothers 
give the words as " Kinat cheragh-i Jehan " and take them to be addressed 
to God, as "0 God ! this is your lamp." But I think, that the text followed 
by Mohl (Small ed. V, p. 105) is correct and the words are "kin ast " and 
not " kinat." 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-bamsel 89 

find a reference again to Alexander's relation with a woman, thoufth 
the above particular girl is not mentioned. Firdousi says of the 
physician that he knew what poison was and what the antidote of 
poison was. Immediately after his mention of the physician's 
knowledge of poison and its antidote, he refers to the sexual life 
of Alexander. I give my translation of what Firdousi says on this 
subject, following the text of Macau's Calcutta edition. ^^ 

" He (the physician) possessed much of knowledge (or wisdom, 
\ddndi). He knew poison (i.e., what poison was) and the antidote 
of poison (pai-zehr^^). He cut several mountain- herbs and 
rejected those which were useless, selected those that were pure 
remedies and mixed (with them) medicines (daru) as required. 
[e washed his (Alexander's) body with mountain-medicines and 
kept him always healthy. He. (Alexander) did not sleep much at 
night but mixed himself well in all pleasures. His head was full of 
work with women and sought of having a soft thing on his breast.^* 
So, the king began to be reduced. He did not care well for 
his body. One day, the physician came before Alexander and 
found the signs of reduction from the moisture of his eyes^^ and 
said : From too much intercourse^^ with women, even a young 

32 Vol. Ill, p. 1302 1.12. The Sekander-nameh of Nizami gives the 
four rare things in the following order (1) The King's daughter. (2) The Cup. 
(3) The Philosopher and (4) The Physician. (The Sikandar namah e Bara, 
or Book of Alexander the Great, written A.D. 1200 by Abu Muhammad 
bin Yusuf bin Abu Ayyid-i-Nizamu-d-din, translated by Capt. H. Wiiberforce 
Clarke (1881), p. 573. For Nizami, vide my Asiatic Papers, Part II, pp. 9-16). 

33 Another form or word for this pai-zehr is Bad-zehr from which is 
derived by Webster our English word " bezoar.'* Webster says of bezoar : 
* * Fr. bezoard, Pers. bad-zahr, the bezoar-stone from bad wind and zahr 
poison ; literally, wind of poison i.e., that, which, like the wind, disperses oP 
drives away the poison." I think the proper derivation is not from Pers. bad 
d (.J wind, but from Pers. bad, power, guardian, which is another form 
of pdi which means power, resistance. So pai-zehr is that which offers resis. 
tance to, or cures, poison. 

34 This line seems to mean that he sought to have the soft embraces 
of women. 

35 Perhaps, what is meant to be said is, that the king wept on account 
of his unbearable illness. 

36 Lit. sleeping and rising. 

90 ' Jivanji Jamshedji Modi 

m^n undoubtedly becomes an old man. I am of opinion, that for 
three nights you have been without sleep (on account of too much 
intercourse). Tell me your secret and open your lips for that. 
Alexander said : ' I am all right. I have no disease (azar)^^ 
in my body.' That eminent^^ wise man {i.e., physician) of 
Hindustan did not agree in that affair (i.e., with what Alexander 
said). When night fell, he looked into the writings i.e., books and 
purchased medicine for remedying the diminution (or consumption 
of his body). Then, on that night, Alexander slept alone and had 
no intercourse with the moon-faced girl. When the physician 
(pazashk)^^ came the next morning, he found, seeing from his 
eyes, that he was {i.e., he slept that night) without her mistress 
(bi-yar). He threw off the medicine (which he had prepared for the 
king) and sat cheerful and took a cup (of drink) cheerfully in his 
hand and ordered table to be spread and asked for musicians and 
wine^^. The king (Alexander) asked him : ' Why have you 
thrown away this thing which you had with some trouble prepared 
with medicine.' He (the physician) replied : ' Last night, the 
king of the world {i.e., Your Majesty) did not wish for intercourse 
with the mistress and slept alone. So, Your Majesty, when you 
sleep alone, there is no need for medicine {i.e., medicine is not neces- 
sary) for thee.' Alexander laughed and was pleased with him." 

One must read this account of Firdousi, as it were, beneath 
the lines. The mention of poison and counter-poison, the gradual 
diminution of the healthy appearance of the king when he slept 
with the Indian girl, his recovery of good looks when he kept away 
from her, — all these point to the Indian girl being the poiscn- 

37 The word " azar " ordinarily means a disease, but in a colloquial 
sense, it is taken to mean '* the disease " i.e., the venereal disease. 

38 Pasandid i.e., the elected, the best. 

39 The word ' physician ' comes from Pers. pazashk which comes from 
Avesta Baeshaza. 

40 What is meant is this : The physician fomid that Alexander, having 
kept away in the previous night from the company of the mistress (whom I 
take as a poison-damsel), looked well. So> he saw no necessity of giving him 
any medicine as an antedote for the poison and was delighted and made 
himself merry. - 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison- Damsel 91 

damsel, with whom the story, as known in the West in its varjijus 
versions, associates Alexander. It seems that, as said by Firdousi 
himself in the beginning, the poet had the story in Pahlavi before 
him. The subject of intercourse with women, not being a decorous 
or descent subject to be written upon openly, the Pahlavi 
writer must have written under some restraint. Firdousi also 
seems to have done the same. It is probable, that Firdousi may 
not have completely grasped the drift of the whole story. He is 
therefore not clear in his interpretation of the story. 

There is one point in Mr. Penzer's account to which I like to 
draw attention here. He says (p. 308) : " The most simple ex- 
planation of the true meaning of poisoning by intercourse which 
at once suggests itself is that it was merely venereal disease un- 
recognised as such." Mr. Penzer then says that " Syphilis was 
introduced into Europe by way of Spain in 1493 by Columbus' 
men."-"^ Further on, he says : " Syphilis appears to have 
been unknown in India till the end of the fifteenth or beginning 
of the sixteenth century, when it was introduced f>y the Portu- 
guese."'^^ But if we take the word "aza." in the above 
description of Firdousi, in the sense of venereal disease, in which 
sense the word is ordinarily imderstood even now, at least in the 
Bombay Presidency, one may say, that Mr. Penzer's above explana- 
tion about the poison-damsel, being a girl infested with syphilis 
seems to be correct and his statement that syphilis was not known 
in India before the advent of the Portuguese to be incorrect. 

Points of Similarity between the Western Story and 
FiRDOUSi's Story. 

From the above account, we find, that there are a number of 
points of similarity between the different versions of the Western 
story and Firdousi' s veision of the Eastern story. 

1. Both the stories refer to, what may be called, an extraordi- 
nary thing. The Western story refers in the beginning 
to a sooth-sayer and Firdousi's to a learned man, 
Mehran by name, who was an ascetic dream-reader. 

41 P. 308. 42 P. 310. 

92 ' Jivanji Jamshedji Modi. 

^ 2. In both the versions, there is a kind of prophecy, — in 
one case by the sooth-sayer and in the other by the 
dream-reader, saying that Alexander will invade India. 

3. Both the stories refer to the presentation of rich gifts to 

Alexander by the Indian king, and to a young damsel 
as being one of these rich things. 

4. Both the stories represent Alexander as falling in love with 

the damsel at first sight. 

5. Both the stories represent a learned wise man as saving 

Alexander from mischief. In the Western story it 
is Aristotle who does so. In Firdousi's story, it is a 
physician — the very physician who was sent as a gift 
to Alexander by the Indian king. 

6. In both versions, we find a reference to a herb as an antidote 

to the poison of the damsel. In the Eastern story, 
it was " a master" who saw through this and gave 
th# king a herb. In Firdousi's story, the physician 
" cut several mountain-herbs" for the purpose. 

7. In one of the versions of the Eastern story, the transference 

of the poison was through sexual intercourse. In 
Firdousi's story also it is the same. 


MAgouDi's Reference to Four Rare Things, and, among 
THEM, TO A Maiden. 

We find a reference to these four rare possessions of the Indian 
king in the work of Ma^oudi also. Abou'l-Ha§an Ali Ma§oudi, 
who was born at Bagdad in the end of the third century, had come 
to India. He was in Multan in Hijri 300 i.e., A. C. 912. He was 
in Cambay in about 916.*^ In his Maruj Al Zahab (Chap. XXVI),^* 
he gives, what he speaks of as " an abridged History of the 

^3 Magoudi, Les Prairies d'or. Texte et Traduction par Barbier de 
Meynard et Pavet de Courteille. Vol. I, Avant Propos, p. III. 
44 Ibid, Vol. II, p. 260. 

The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison- Damsel 0^. 

Expedition of Alexander in India." Therein, he says, tb»t 
Alexander, after defeating king Porus, king of Mankir''^ ( o^ U), 
heard, that in further India there was a king named Kend^'^ 
( diT), who was somewhat of a philosopher and an ascetic. 
He sent him a letter asking him to offer submission. Kend 
rendered submission offering his four rare possessions and a 
miraculous cup as tokens of submission. Of these four rare 
possessions, one was a young girl " the like of whose beauty 
the sun had never seen."'^^ Alexander accepted the terms of 
submission and sent his ambassadors to bring these four things. The 
ambassadors went to the court of the Indian king, who 
welcoming them, produced before them the four rare things. The 
first that was produced before them was the young girl. " When 
she appeared before them, their eyes rested upon her. Alexander 
himself, when he saw her, was struck with her beauty." 

*5 This seems to be modern Maghar in the district of Basti in the North- 
western Provinces ( Vide Constable's Hand Atlas of India, 1893), p. 47. 

46 This is another form of Firdousi's Kaid ( JoJ^ ). Both these words 
can be written with the same forms of letters, with a change in the nuktehs 
of the second letter. 

47 I follow Barbier de Meynard's translation (Vo. II, p. 261 ). " Une 
jeune fiUe dont la soleil n'avait jamais vu I'egale pour la beaute." 

The Times Press, JBombay- J. 243L-28. 

A Note on two Chalukya Plates found at Dhamadachchha in the 
Naosari District {referred to in the " Progress Report of the 
Archceological Survey of India. Western Circle'', for the year 
ending 31st March 1918, Part II, A, Epigraphy pp. 35-36). 

[This Note was, at first, sent by me to Mr. R. D. Banerji, 
the Superintendent of the Archaeological Department of Western 
India, at Poona, on 7th June 1919. It was sent by him to 
the Librarian of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, 
without communicating to him my name. When Mr. G. V. 
Acharya, Curator of the Archaeological Section of the Prince 
of Wales Museum, edited the Plates and read a paper on the sub- 
ject (Art. XII "Two Sets of Chalukya Copper plates from 
Navascri), he embodied my Note as an " Appendix A " {vide the 
Journal of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XXVI, 
No. 2 pp. 251-261 for the Paper and page 261 for my Note given 
as Appendix A.) ] 

In his " Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of 
India, Western Circle, for the year ending 31st March 1918 
(Part II A, Epigraphy pp. 35-36 ) ", dated 1st September 

1918, Mr. R. D. Banerji says as follows about two Chalukya Plates : 
" To the keen interest taken by Mr. P. B. Gothaskar, Librarian 
of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, in the search 
of Indian antiquities, we owe the recovery of two interesting copper- 
plate charters purporting to be issued by the Chaulukya Karnadeva 
of Anahilapataka. It was after a great deal of trouble that Mr. 
Gothaskar succeeded in obtaining the loan of them from him (the 
owner) for the purpose of photographing them. The negatives 
have been purchased by me for this department, and will be filed 
in my office. It is intended to contribute a detailed descriptive 
note on them to the " Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal 
Asiatic Society ". 

On inquiry from Mr. Gothaskar, in the middle of March 

1919, I learnt that the Note had not been sent till then by 
Dr. Sukthankar, the assistant Superintendent, in whose hands 


the photographs had been placed for publication^. In the mean- 
time this short Note has been intended to identify the places 
referred to in the plates and noticed in the above Report. 

The plates are said to refer to the reign of the Chalukya 
Karnadeva. One gives as its date 996 Saka and the other 1131 
of Vikrama. Both of them are made in favour of " Brahmana 
Pandita Mahidhara, son of Rudraditya of the Mandavya gotra, who 
had come to Nausari from Madhydesa " '' by the Mahamandales- 
vara Durlabharaja belonging to a feudatory Chaulukya family of 
Nagasarika (Naosari), which acknowledged the suzerainty of the 
Gujarat Chaulukyas of Anhilwada ". The grants are for one and 
the same village Dhamanachchha. " The boundaries of the village 
are given as follows :— To the east, Kalagrama ; to the south, 
Toranagrama ; to the west, Avala (or Amvala) Sati-grama ; to 
the north, Kachhavali-grama ". Mr. Banerji identifies Dhama- 
lachchha with the present Dhamadachchha and Toranagrama 
with Taranagam, and adds that " the other place-names remain 
unidentified ". 

I beg to give here a small map of the locality round the village 
of the grant, as kindly drawn for me by Mr. Sorabji Muncherji 
Desai of Naosari from the Baroda State map. From this map we 
can identify the other places as follows : — 

(1) Dhamalachchha, the village which forms the subject 
of the grants is, as said by Mr. Bannerji, the present 
Dhamadachchha, the Dhamdachha of the map. My 
forefathers belonged to Naosari, and I remember 
hearing from boyhood that the mangoes which came 
to Noasari from Dhamdachha-Kacholi (^Hv^n^ji i^i^) 
were the best of those that came to be sold there. It 
was this familiarity with the name of the village, which 
gave the best of its mangoes to Naosari, that has led me 
to look into the matter of these grants and to make 
further inquiries. There is a well-known mango-tree 
at Dhamdachha even now, known as Daramyo 

I I inquired again in October 1928 and learnt that no Note had been 


' . » 

ambo (?iR(M^i ^i^li), i.e., pomegranate-like mango- 
tree. Mr. Sorabji Dcsai informs me that it is at present 
, mortgaged to his Desai family. The custom of 

possessing individual trees standing on the grounds of 
others, is an interesting custom. 

While, on the subject of some individual peculiar mango-trees 
like the Daramyo mango-tree of Dhamdachha, I may refer here 
for the information of botanists and others, to a mango-tree known 
as ^iCHrll ^V^i (chalto ambo), i.e., a walking mango-tree, which 
we see at Sanjan, the town where the ancestors of the modem 
Parsees first landed in India after the downfall of the Persian 
Empire at the hands of the Arabs. It is an unique mango- 
tree, the like of which I have not seen anywhere else. It spreads 
in one direction and is therefore known as a walking mango-tree. 

(2) The village referred to in the grants as Kachchhavaligrama, 

as being on the north of Dhamdachchha, is Kachholi 
in the map. In connection with the above-mentioned 
famous mangoes, this village is always connected 
with Dhamdachha, and is spoken of as Dhamdachha- 
Kacholi, on the analogy of the names of cities and 
towns like Buda-Pesth, Bili-mora, Jehan-bordi, 
Dhamdachha is in the district of H. H. the Gaekwad 
and Kachheli in that of the British. 

(3) The Kalagrama of the Copper-plate grants, mentioned 

as situated on the east of the village granted, may 
be either the modern ^H^^im (Khergam in the map) 
or Kalvach, most probably the latter. 

(4) The Toranagrama on the south is, as identified in the 

Report, the modern Tarangam, the Torangam in the 

(5) The Avala Satigrama or Amvala Satigrama of the copper- 

plates, situated on the west, is the modern Amalsar 
or Amalsad, the Amalsad of the map. The adjoining 
Railway Station on the B. B. & C. I. Railway is known 
by that name. 

' 97 

Naosari is spoken of in the grants as Nagasarika. In many 
old Parsee documents, it is spoken as Nagmandal (<iPlH*>i<A). 

The learned writer of the Report says " The curious circums-« 
tances regarding these grants which are dated on different days 
is that both of them are made in favour of the same person and 
convey the very same village. The wording of the grants, is 
however, quite different in the two plates. ... It is as difficult 
to give a reason why two grants should have been made conveying 
the same village to the same person, as to explain the difference 
in the dates and the writing. It does appear though, as if the 
first set, namely the one that is evidently the better of the two, 
is the original, genuine document ; the other seems to have been 
made later in imitation of it, as a substitute for it." I think the 
difficulty above referred to, is solved by what the writer says in the 
matter of, what he calls, the genuine document. He says : "It 
is perhaps worth noting that in the grant which is above held 
to be the original document, the portion containing the boundaries 
is written at the very end of the document and was added 
seconda manu,^ which is palpably different from that in which 
the rest of the grant is written, and which rather resembles the 
clumsy lettering of the other grant under reference. The problems 
raised by this pair of grants cannot thus all be looked upon as 
solved ". 

I beg to explain the above difficulty as follows : — 

The document was first drawn by somebody, say A, who was 
less of a lawyer. He did not mention the boundaries in the 
body of the document, as he ought to. have done, to identify 
the village. There are many places which bear same names 
or similar names. So, to identify a village or a place, the 
mention of boundaries is necessary. The flaw in the first 
document, spoken of in the Reports as " original " or 
" genuine," may have been latterly observed by B, who 
may be a better lawyer or drawer of legal documents, 
though he wrote a rather crude or bad hand. He, at first 
thought of doing away with the flaw by writing the boun- 

2 In second or different hand. 


> » 

daries at the end in his own hand and did so. Such additions 
on legal documents, are likely to raise doubts about their 
being genuine. So, on a second thought in order to remove 
the likelihood of such doubts, he may have thought of pre- 
paring a second document, observing the proper formality 
of mentioning the boundaries of the village granted. While 
doing so, he, being a better lawyer or drawer of documents 
may have thought it opportune to attend to the wording 
of the document and may have changed it accordingly. 
The difference in the dates also, is explained by the above 
view. The first document is dated " Tuesday, the eleventh 
day of the bright half of Margasirsha in the Saka year 996." 
The second or revised document is dated " the eleventh day 
of the bright half of Kartika in the Vikrama year 1131. Thus 
we see, that the second revised and corrected document 
was made after the first. Thus, as a matter of fact, the 
second document was a proper and more correct and legal 
document. But the preservation of the first plate or 
document was necessary to complete, as it were, the 
history of the grant of the village. 

I have said above, that more than one town, village or place, 
held the same name, and that is especially the case in India. So, 
in naming the town, or village or place, one must be very careful. 
An amusing instance of neglect to do so is presented in an 
article entitled " Moguls and Jesuits" in the January 1919, issue 
of the East and West of Bombay. There are two Srinagars, one 
in Kashmir and another in Garhwal. In ^24, a Jesuit father 
D'Andrada by name, went to Chaprand in^ibet via the second 
Srinagar i.e., the one in Garhwal. After a stay of 20 years there, 
he left the place on account of a Revolution that arose there. 
Some time in the 18th century another father. Father Desidui 
who having read of Father D'Andrada's stay in Tibet, took 
the Srinagar mentioned by him to be the Srinagar of Kashmir 
and from there went to Lassha in Tibet. He found there a 
'mission house of the Cappuchin Missionaries. It was vacant 
for the time being, the Cappuchin Missionaries having gone out 


of the country for some time. He took that to be the mission t 
^ house referred to by Father D'Andrada and stayed there. Some 
time after, the real owners, the Cappuchin Fathers returned and , 
claimed their mission house from Father Desidui. He refused 
to vacate it saying that it was the mission house of our Jesuit 
D'Andrada. The dispute went to the Pope who decided the 
matter in favour of the Cappuchins. 









Read before the B. B. R. A. Society, on Monday , the 27th August 1928. 



The subject of this paper has suggested itself to me on the 
inspection of five ^ documents of the time of the United East India 
Company. These documents have been kindly lent to me for 
inspection and study by Mr. Kavasji Jalbhoy Seth, the 8th heir 
in direct descent ^ from Rustam Manock, who forms the subject 
of this paper. I beg to submit these documents here for inspection. 
They are dated from 1723 to 1725, and refer to the affairs between 
Rustam Manock, who died in 1721, and the East India Company. 

1 Two of the documents are, as will be seen later on, of the same tenor. 

2 The midermentioned tree gives Mr. Kavasji Seth's line of descent. It 
is prepared from a book entitled 'Tii Ml'ltH ^^''^'il l*?il«i«T iMl ^h 3<4^ifi." 
(The Genealogy of the Seth Khandan family and its br"ef account) by 
Mr. Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth (1900 A.C.). The Hon'ble Sir Pheroze C. Sethna 
also is 8th in descent from Rustam Manock from the line of another son of 
Rustam 's son Bomanji. 

Rustam Manock. 


1 \ I .. 

Framji 1 Bomanji Nowroji. 

I I 

2 Muncherji M a n o k j i 

I who having 

3 Sorabji no son 

I adopted 

4 Nowroji his grand 

I cousin 

6 Merwanji Sorabji. 


6 Manockji 


7 Merwanji 

8 Ardeshir Jalbhoy Kavasji. 

102 , ^ Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

I took copies of the documents with the help of a magnifying 
^ glass, and then, later on, found, that three of the documents were 
pi:^blished by Mr. Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth about 28 years ago.^ But' 
as few copies of this book were published and that only for 
private circulation, and as Mr. Jalbhoy has given them in the 
modern spelling, I give these documents at the end in this paper 
with their old spelling. Mr. Jalbhoy has not published one of the 
documents — the third — ^probably because it is very faint and 
difficult to be deciphered. It has got still fainter now. However, 
I have, with some difficulty, deciphered a large part of it. 
The portion deciphered seems to be sufficient to tell us what it 
is about. 

The object of the paper is three-fold : — A. To examine 
Object of the and explain the documents. B. To give 
Paper. a brief account of the life of Kustam Manock, 

who was a broker, not only of the Enghsh East India Company 
and of the United East India Company but also of the 
Portuguese, and most probably also of the Dutch. C. To 
examine the Historical events, etc., referred to in a Persian poem, 
entitled " Qisseh-i-Rustam Manock." 


(A) The Documents. 

I will, at first, speak of the Documents. They are the following : — 
1. A letter, dated " London, the 19th August 1723 ", addressed 
to " Our President and Councill of Bombay " and signed by 17 
members of the Court of Directors who speak of themselves, when 
signing, as " Your Loving Friends". We have two copies of it. 
One, torn away a good deal, and the other, in good condition. The 
covers of both bear the following address : "To the Hon'ble the 
President and Councill for all the Forces and Affairs of the 
English Nation at Bombay " 19th August 1724. The reason 
why we have two copies is explained in the letter itself, which 
speaks of six copies being sent to prevent loss. The covering 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh > ' 103 

address of both the copies bear seals, which say " Engl. E. Ind. 

Comp." (i.e., English East India Company). Both the copies, 
I which I produce for inspection, give the year as 1724. But the 
I late Mr. Jalbhoy Seth gives, in his Genealogy of the Seth Khandan 
i family (p. 12), the year as 1723. We do not know what year 
I the other four copies gave. From the contents of the letter, I 
I think the year 1723 is correct, because it does not at all speak of the 
I award of 1724, and says that the Papers will be examined. So, it 

seems to have been sent before the award. 

2. An award, dated 18th January 1724, made and signed 
by four arbitrators— Ma thew Decker, Jos Wordsworth, E. Harrison 

I and John Heathcote. They have ended the award as follows : 
■ Wee the said Arbitrators have to this our award sett our hands 

j and seals this Eighteenth day of January in the Eleventh year of 
the reign of our Sovereign Lord George King of Great Britain 
and France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, or Anno Domini 
1724". The signatories have added the words '' I. S."3« after their 
names. This award is attested by Hervey and George Lloyd,* 
with the words " Sealed and Delivered (being first duly stampt) 
in the presence of ". 

3. The third document has got faint and is not wholly legible. 
It is a document from the office of the Lord Mayor. It says at the 
bottom : "If faith and testimony of writer and Lord Mayor 

'^ Seal of 

" put and approved 
' on Fourth day of February of the Keign of our Sovereign and 
King of Great Britain. 

This document refers to the above second document of 18th 
of January 1724 and seems to be a document relating to registration. 
It is marked in blue pencil as " Notarial Seal to the Award." 

3a I am indebted to Mr. Muncherji Pestonji Khareghat, I.C.S. (Retd.) 
for the following information on the subject : 

•'I cannot at present find in any book with me as to what the letters 
i. S. after the signature in the oM deed mean, but if they immediately 
pjecede the seal and follow the signature, I can conjecture that they may 
stand for " Ipsius Signum " — i-e.. " his own signature or seal ", like qui 

4 The words " and George " are not quite clear. So, I have given them 
as in Mr. Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth's Genealogy of the Seth Family, p. 25. 

104 f r Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

4. The fourth document is indirectly concerned with the 
East India Company. It refers to Rustam Manock's sons who are 
referred to in the above two documents. It is a letter addressed* 
to "Messrs. Framji Rustomjee and Bomanjee Rustomjee ", two 
sons of Rustam Manock in India. It is dated " London 25th 
March 1725 " and written hy Cha Boonet, who was, before this 
time, at Surat in the English Factory. 

I give below the substance of the above documents. 

Substance of The substance of the letter of 17 Director 

-thfm^Zr^ of the United East India Company, dated 19tl 

Letter of I9th August 1723, and addressed to the " Presiden 

August 1723 to ^nd Council! of Bombay " is as follows :— 
the President 
and Council of 

1. Received your packets and advices by ships Kin 

George, Stanhope and Salisbury. 

2. We have learnt your desire that (a) the late broker 

(Rustam Manock and Sons) should "give us satisf actio 
as to all just demands upon them ", (b) that you wan 
to give proofs about the affairs " from their {i.e., thi 
Brokers) own books and accounts" and (c) that " matter 
of difference that may arise" may be determined b 
arbitration of members chosen by both sides. 

3. We learn that Framji (Rustam Manock's son) " is 

custody at the Surat Durbar and Bomanjee remain 
confined in his house at Bombay." 

4. Ship Salisbury, which arrived at Spithead the latter en< 

of April last, brought Nowrojee from Surat and 
" hath laid before us several papers and accounts whic 
are ordered to be perused and taken into consideration. 

5. Some of the papers given by him refer to " the case 

Framjee in close prison " at Suart " on the applicatio 
of the English Chiefs, Mr. Hope and afterwards Messrs 
Cowans and Courtenay " to Momeen Cann the Sura 
Governor; and, on a letter by Governor Phipps, (a) Fram; 
was first confined, (6) " then guards " were " set on hi 
father Rustomjee' s house " ; (c) Framjee was forced 
pay to the above Surat Governor or Nawab Rs. 50,00 
and also Rs. 200 a day " for leave to supply the peopi 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 105 

in the house with provisions and water." (d) Framjee has 
also been submitted to corporal punishment. 

6. '' However the case be " the Directors direct and order 
that Bomanjee at Bombay may be set at liberty and that 
appHcation be made to the (Mogul) Governor of Surat 
to set free Framjee and to take off the guards from their 
father's house. The Directors added : " our desire 
being to end all differences amicably, for we would not 
have him oppressed." 

7. Six letters " all of the same tenor " are given to Nowrojee, 
as "he intends to send them overland if any should 
miscarry, the rest may come safe and earlier than by 
shipping directly from hence, for they will not sail till 
proper season." 

The Directors, as said in their letter dated 19th August 1723 

Substance of the to their President and Council at Bombay, tried to 

2nd document,-- gg^^je ^}^q differences amicably, and the case was 

I the Award of the . n p . . \ i i • i 

I Arbitrators. referred to four arbitrators, two from both sides — 

I the United East India Company and the heirs of Rustam Manock. 
I The following were the arbitrators : 1. (Sir) Mathew Decker, 
2: Josias Wordsworth, 3. Edward Harrison and John Heathcote. 
I They declar^ their award duly signed by all of them on 18th 
I January 1724. The following is the substance of the award : — 

(1) An Indenture dated 18th November (1723) was made 
between the United East India Company and 
Nowrojee Rustomjee, then residing in London. The 
Indenture recited that : — 

(a) " Several accounts, claims and demands had been 

depending and several disputes and controver- 
sies had arisen " between the United East 
India Company and Nowrojee, Framjee and 
Bamanjee " in their or one of their own proper 
right as in the rights of Eustomjee Manockjee 
father " of the above three sons. 

(b) The two parties desired to bring an amicable 

settlement and therefore '' had indifferently 
elected and chosen four persons to be 


106 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

(c) Both the parties agreed to " well and truly stand 
to, abide, observe, perform, fulfill and keep 
(i.e., accept) tbe award." • 

(2) The award was made "at the East India House in 

Leadenhall Street, London, on or before the 
Eighteenth day of this instant January." 

(3) It was agreed by the parties that the award " should be 

made a Kule of His Majesty's Court of King's Bench 
at Westminster according to a late Act of Parliament 
for determining differences by Arbitration. 

(4) The Arbitrators having " fully heard and examined th 

several Allegations and Proofs of the said Parties an 
maturely weighed and considered the same and the 
matter in difference between them," declared their 
award as follows : — 

(a) On the 18th of November 1723, there was due 
from the United East India Company to the 
three brothers, sons of Rustomjee Manockjee, 
sums of money as follows : — 

(1) Rs. 91,367 and pies 29 J, by "virtue of one Bond 

Deed or Interest Bill, dated 15th May 1716." 

(2) Rs. 51,840 by virtue of another Bond and Bill 

dated 4th October 1716. 

(3) There were other sums due to the brothers upon 

other " several accounts depending between 
them and the United Company." 

The total due to the brothers, including the above named two 
sums, came to Rs. 5,46,390. 

(h) This sum of Rs. 5,46,390 to be paid as follows :— 
(1) £1,925 " sterling money being the amount or. 
value in England of Rs. 170,000" to be 
paid on or before the 1st February now 
next ensuing (i.e., on 1st February 1724). 
On that pajnaient being made Nowrojee 
was to return to the United Company 
the above bond of 15th May 1716. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh . 107 

(2) Rs. 1,88,195 to be paid in Bombay on or before 
1st February 1 7 25'A.D., the brothers to pass 
a receipt for the sum. 

(3) Rs. 1,88,195 to be paid at Bombay on or before 
the 1st February 1726. 

On the receipt of the last instabnent the brothers were to pass 
" a General Release." They were also to pass a Bond of sufficient 
penalty to indemnify the Company against all claims and demands. 

This document is a kind of Registration document. It is from 
Substance of ^^^ Edward Mathew Decker, Knight, Lord Mayor 
the 3rd Docu- and the Aldermen of the City of London. It is 
^^ very faint and not very legible. 

Sometime after the declaration of the award, Charles Boonet, 
who was at one time a leading member of the 
the''^ith''%ocu ^^g^i^^ Factory at Surat, and who, knowing the 
,^^^, late broker Rustam Manock well, seems to have 

taken an interest in the case of his sons, wrote a 
letter dated 25th March 1725, to the brothers who were in Bombay. 
The substance of the letter is as follows : — 

(1) I have received several letters from you and have sent 

replies to some at the hands of Capt. Hide and Mr. 
Thomas Waters. 

(2) You did wrong in sending Nowrojee to England without a 

letter of Attorney " under your hands after the English 

(3) You ought to have sent with him " the original Bonds 

which were the most material things wanting." 

(4) I have done my best to help and advise Nowrojee. 

Do not tell to anybody " what methods have been 
taken in England relating to this business." If that 
was done it will '' greatly prejudice the affairs." 

(5) I have settled the dispute between Nowrojee and Capt. 

Braithwait of the Salisbury Man-of-War (the ship by 
which Nowrojee went to England). 

(6) I have received from Nowrojee what was due to me. 

In case my Agent Mr. Thomas Waters has received 
that, ere this, from you, this wiU be returned to you. 

log Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

• € 

(7) You brothers must live peacefully. There is a chance of 

your being appointed brokers again. But if you will 
fight among yourselves, you will spoil your cause. • 

(8) Nowrojee has worked very hard here and had fallen ill. 

You therefore give him a good present for his services, 
" Everybody here hath great value and esteem for him, 
because he hath managed this affair to the satisfaction 
of the Hon'ble Company and for the good and interest 
of his Brothers and family." 

(9) Mr. Boonet objects to the brothers deducting, as statec 

in their letter of 10th September 1722, Es. 26,458 am 
33 pice, given to Mr. Hope as Vice-Consul for Commis^ 
sion at 5 per cent, and asks that sum to be recoverec 
from Mr. Hope with interest, as the arrangement 
with him was that he was to get commission on what 
he should collect himself, in which case he had to stand 
as security. Fortunately "your affairs have taken a 
favourable turn"; otherwise "my consulage must 
have been lost by Mr. Hope's neglecting my orders." 

(10) The Company gave " prequisites " to its servants. " The 

Company gave me the whole perquisite without any 
exception and the excusing the servants of Bombay 
or Surat was a voluntary act and designed only as an 
encouragement to young beginners, for I ever insisted to 
' have it paid in stocks, otherwise the name of a Company's 

servant might cover many cargoes as Mr. Hope has 

(11) " Recommends his new attorney Mr. Thomas Waters." 

(12) Your brother has settled through me "his affair with 

Commodore Mathews." I have been useful to you. 

You likewise be useful to me. 

The story of the documents, in brief, is this : Rustam 

Manock, an influential Parsee of Surat, who 

Tfie Story of ^^^' ^^ account of his influence and generosity, 

the Documents in received the surname of Seth, was appointed the 

^^^^^' broker, at Surat, of the English East India 

Company and then of the United East India 

Company. He was dismissed after some years by the Governor 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 109 

of Bombay against the wishes of the President and Council of Surat 

who wished him to be re-instated. The Companies owed him a 

I) large amount which remained unpaid upto the time of his death 

I in 1721. He had left three sons, who had disputes with the English 

j Motors at Surat on their father's death, about the above debt. 

j So, one of them, Framjee, the eldest, was detained in custody at 

his own house at Bombay and the second, Bomanjee, was confined 

ill his own house at Surat by the Nabob or the Mogul Governor of 

Surat at the instance of the English factors. So, Nowrojee,^ 

the third and youngest son, went to London to place his and his 

brothers' case before the Directors of the United Company. The 

Company sent orders here to release the two brothers and they and 

Nowrojee agreed to refer the matter of dispute to arbitration. 

The award of the four arbitrators was unanimously in favour of 

the brothers. 


Early English Trade and the East India Companies- 

I will give here, at first, a brief account of the three East India 
Companies, with two of which — the English East India Company 
and the United East India Company — Rustam Manock had come 
into direct contact as their broker. 

India traded with the West by land-route from very ancient 

times. Then, the Crusades (1095 to 1291) brought 

The Advent of Western Europe in greater contact with the East. 

<!A€ English in The Italian States of Venice and Genoa had, at 

India. first, a successful trade with the East, via the ports 

of Egypt, Syria and Constantinople. After 1500, 

during which year, the Portuguese admiral Vasco de Gama 

discovered the sea-route to India via the Cape of Good Hope, 

Portuguese fleets began trading with India. The Portuguese 

broke the monopoly of Genoa and Venice and successfully 

monopolized the trade with India till 1580, when Spain and Portugal 

were united together under Philip II, a bigoted Roman Catholic 

monarch, who sought uniformity of religion and tried to force 

5 Nowroji was the first Parsee to go to England; the second was Maniar 
who went in 1781. 

110 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

his Roman Catholicism, here and there. His Dutch subjects of the 
Netherlands, where the seeds of the Reformation were already 
sown, disliked his bigotry and revolted. The Dutch used to 
obtain Indian products from Portugal which, as said above, had a 
kind of monopoly in Indian trade. Philip, as a punishment for 
their revolt, stopped their intercourse with Lisbon. This stoppage , 
deprived them from having Indian commodities. This state of j 
affairs forced them to trade independently with the East. Their 
first four, trade-ships, at first, went and traded with Java in 1595. 
In 1640, Portugal threw off the Spanish yoke and its new King 
John IV (Duke of Braganza), on coming to throne, tried to stand 
against the Dutch in their capture of Indian trade. But, by this 
time, the Dutch had established themselves strongly in the East. 

The commercial successes of the Portuguese and the Dutch 
in the Eastern trade had opened the eyes of some English merchants 
of London. Later on, they drew the attention of the French.^ 
Robert Orme gives us a succinct and interesting account f 
of the " Establishment of the English trade at Surat""^. The very 
first Englishman to land in India, though not for trade purposes, 
was Father Thomas Stevens or Stephens who landed at Goa in 
1578^ in the company of a few Jesuits. He died in 1619. In 1581 
Queen Elizabeth gave a charter to a small company, known as the 
Levant Company and also as the Turkey Company. In 1583, 
the Company sent out Newberry, Fitch, Leedes and others by the 
overland route of Aleppo, Basra and Hormaz with a letter from 

6 Voltaire, in his " Si6cle de Louis XIV " criticises the tardiness of the 
French in scientific matters and in geographical discoveries and enterprizes. 
He says : " Les Fran9ais n'eurent part ni aux grandes decouvertes ni aux 
inventions admirable des autre nations . , . .lis faisaient des tournois, 
pendant que les Portugais et les Espagnols d6couvraient and conqueraient de 
nouveaux mondes a Forient et d Foccident du monde connu." (Edition of 
1878 of " (Euvres Completes de Voltaire " p 158 p. 4 Chap. I Introduction), 
i.e. " The French took no part, either in the great discoveries or in the 
admirable inventions of other nations. . . . They performed the 
tournaments when the Portuguese and the Spaniards discovered and 
conquered the new worlds in the east and in the west of the known world." 
Robert Grant in his " Sketch of the History of the East India Company " 
(1813) p. XXXVI draws our attention to this criticism of Voltaire. 

:. 7 .Robert Orme's " Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire " (1805), 
p. 319 et seq. 8 7. Smith gives the year as 1579 (Smith's Akbar, p. 296). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 111 

the Queen to Akbar®. They arrived at Akbar's court in 1585. 
Then came, in 1603, ^° Mildenhall, at the head of a commercial 
:» mission, via Aleppo and Persia. He announced himself as a messen- 
ger from Queen Elizabeth and got permission to trade. All of 
these commercial adventurers came in foreign vessels. 

The first English vessel that came here was Hector with Capt. 
William Hawkins as Commander. It arrived at Suwalli (modem 
Sumari) in August IGOS^^a. A ship, named Ascension, had left 
England one month before it, but it was delayed in the voyage, and, 
when it came in Indian waters, was wrecked at Gandevi about 30 
miles south of Surat. Hawkins had a letter from King James. He 
arrived in Jahangir's Court at Agra in April 1609 and remained 
there till November 1611. Though weU received at first, he was 
refused permission for a factory at Surat. In 1611, the English 
established a factory at Maslipatam. The Portuguese were power- 
ful here at the time. 

The Company had resolved to arrange for an embassy. 

Sir Thomas Koe carried the first embassy 

from James I. He left England in March 

Emhas ^afthe ^^^^' ^^^ arrived at Surat in September 1615. 

Moghal Court. He was in India for 3 years and 5 months 

and left in 1619. Among the presents that he 

brought was an English coach ^^ . Sir Thomas 

is said to have suggested, that wine would be a better present for 

the Moghal King and his Prince. He wrote : " Never were men 

more enamoured of that drinke as these two : they would more 

.highly esteem them than all the jewels in Chepeside ^'^ " Jahangir 

gave the necessary permission " to settle factories in any parts 

of the Mogul empire, specifying Bengal, Sundy, and Surat. ^^ " 

9 Vide Smith's Akbar (1917); p. 227 et seq. lO Vide Smith's Akbar, 
pp. 292-94. 10a Hawkins' Voyages by C. R. Markham (1878) p. 388 seq. 

^^ Jahangir, in his Memoirs (Rogers and Beveridge Vol. I, p. 340), speaks 
of driving in a Frank (firangi) carriage driven by four horses when he left 
Ajmer for the Deccan. That was on 10th November 1616. So, it seems that, 
that was the coach sent as a present by James I. 

^2 Peter Auber's " Analysis of the Constitution of the East India 
Company" (1826), p. 718. " Ibid. 

112 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 


The first English factory at Surat was founded in September j 

1612. Robert Orme^"^ gives us an interesting I 
The First Enq- account of its formation under Capt. Best who<; 
Ush Factory at came to Surat with two ships of the Company.] 
8urat in 1612. -jj^g Portuguese did all they could to prevent the 

establishment of the Factory but they failed. The 
Surat merchants liked very much that the English may establish 
their factory there. One of them enthusiastically said : " Surat 
must burn all its ships, if friendship were not maintained with the 
English. "^^ On the favourable representations of the merchants 
"Sheik Suffee, the governor of Ahmedabad, came down to Swally 
on the 17th (September 1612) and gave pledges, on which Capt. 
Best went ashore, and in two days settled a treaty."^^ Orme adds : 
" The scope of these articles (of treaty) provided sufiiciently for 
security of a ^rs^ establishment. They were signed on the 21st of 
October (1622), when Captain Best delivered the governor of 
Ahmedabad a costly present from the Company. . ."^^ From 
this time forward the English trade regularly advanced here. Best 
went home, and, on his giving a glaring report of the Indian trade, 
the Directors of the East India Company raised a better fleet and 
arranged to send an ambassador to the Mogal Court to counteract 
the influence of the Jesuit priests on behalf of Portugal. Jahangir 
did not like the Portuguese. So, a victory won by the English 
over the Portuguese on 29th January 1615^^, at Swally, greatly 
pleased him^ and he, in his Memoirs, especially mentions that 
victory — the victory over theWarza (Portuguese Viceroy) — as one 
of the three good news that had reached him in the month 
Bahman.i^ It appears from Orme that, in 1678, the Company's 
broker at Surat was a Bania.^^ 

The English had some trade at Surat -from the 

early part of the 17th century. It was in 1666, 
at Surat ^ ^^^^ *^® Madras establishment came to be equal 

to that of Surat where they paid a consolidated 

1* Orme's Historical Fragments of the Mogal Empire (1805), p. 327 etseq. 
^^ Ibid, p. 328. i« Ibid. For the terms of the Treaty vide Ibid, pp. 328-9. 
1' Ibid, p. 329. i» Orme's Historical Fragments, p. 351. Danvers' 
Portuguese in India (1894) II, 170—71. 

" Memoirs by Rogers and Beveridge I., p. 274. 
20 Orme's Historical Fragments (1805), p. 72. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 113 

duty of 3J p.c. on their goods. " In addition to this import duty, a 
poll tax called jaziya was imposed on non-Muslims from 2nd April 
1679." The Christians protested but " though they are ahl-i-kitab 
or behevers in the Old Testament like the Muhammadans^i", 
their protest was of no avail. But " the Moghal Government seems 
to have found it difficult to assess and levy the jaziya per head 
from the Europeans in the same manner as from the Hindus, and 
consequently it seems to have offered a compromise by turning the 
jaziya into an addition to the import duty on their goods, raising 
the latter (from 2-| p.c. ) to ?>\ p.c. "2^. Aurangzeb's farman of 
26tK June 1667, directed that " the English trader there (at Surat) 
should pay only 2 p.c. ad valorem duty on all goods imported by 
them to that harbour. "^^ This concession was granted on the 
recommendation of Ghiyas-ud-din Khan, the Governor of Surat, 
to the Wazir Jafar Khan. This was perhaps because the English 
had made a bold stand, as we will see later on, against Shivaji 
during his first sack of Surat in 1664. In 1679, the above reduced 
•| p.c. was re-impossed and in addition 1 p.c. was added, as said 
above, for jaziya ; in all they had to pay 3| p.c. for import duties 
ad valorem. 

By this time, the English had exasperated Aurangzeb. They 
had sacked Hugli in 1686 and seized it in 1687. Then, the Bombay 
fleet, as directed by Sir John Child, attacked Aurangzeb's 
fleet. So, he ordered everywhere their arrest, the seizure of their 
factories and prohibition of all trade with them. But the EngHsh 
being strong at sea, harassed Aurangzeb's pilgrim ships to Mecca 
and also other trade-ships. The stoppage of trade led to a 
diminution in Mogul revenue. At last, in February 1690, 
peace was made. The English gave Aurangzeb Rs. 1,50,000. 
Notwithstanding this peace, the English at Surat were harassed 
by the Mogul officers. So, the home authorities, wanted to 
make Bombay, which had come into their hands, " the Key of 
India " and Sir John Child, the then President, " left Surat for 
Bombay on 25th April 1687, in order to be beyond the reach of 
the Moghals. The imperial governor of Surat disHked this retreat 

" Sarkar's History of Aurangzib, Vol. V, vide p. 317 et seq. 
22 Ihid, p. 319. 23 ijjid, p. 320. 

114 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

of the English to an independent position." ^^ A state of war 
^ensued. Benjamin Harris and his assistant Samuel Annesley 
were confined in their house. There was fighting between the Eng- 
lish and the Moghals on the Western Coast in 1688-89. Sir John 
Child, the President, with an English fleet captured a large number 
of Moghal ships. The above English officers were put in chains 
and kept prisoners for 16 months (December 1688 to April 1690). 

At this time, the Siddee of Janjira, the Admiral of Aurangzeb 
on the Western coast, attacked Bombay at Aurangzeb's direction, 
in May 1689. Governor Child did not defend it well. So, it 
fell an easy prey in the hands of the Siddee, and the English had to 
shut themselves up in the Fort. Child sent G. Welden and Abraham 
Navarro to Aurangzeb on a mission for peace (10th December 
1689). Aurangzeb granted a pardon on 25th December 1689. The 
farman of pardon and peace was ceremoniously received at Surat 
on 4th April 1690. The English officers were released and they 
paid Its. 1,50,000 as fine. The English had suffered a good deal 
in prestige and their affairs for 1691-1692 and 1693 were bad. 
Early in 1694^ Sir John Gayer came to India as the chief 
agent in Western India and Governor of Bombay. In May 1694, 
Annesley became the chief of the Surat factory. During the next 
six years, the European pirates were powerful in the Indian seas 
and injured the power of the EngUsh for trade on the Western 
coast. In 1695, Aurangzeb's own ship was plundered by an 
EngHsh pirate, Bridgmen alias Avery. The English were held 
responsible for this piracy and President Annesley and his 
assistants had to be confined. Aurangzeb, at first, thought of 
punishing strongly all the European factories — the Dutch, the 
French and the English, but, on second thought, he arranged 
with them for the further protection of the trade. On 6th January 
1696, the English President Annesley undertook to supply an 
escort for his ships and he was set at liberty. 

In 1697, an English pirate Kidd again brought the English 
into difficulties. Aurangzeb imposed a fine of Rs. 14 lakhs upon 
the factories of the three nations . In the end, these three nations 
divided their work and undertook to protect the Indian trade 
on the different parts of the Incjian coast. About this time, on 

2* Ibid, pp. 336-337. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 115 

6th April 1699, the new Company, the English East India 

I Company, was formed and Sir Nicholas Waite came to Surat, as 

(its first President, and Sir William Norris came to India as an 

I ambassador from the English King. In February 1701, Sir 

I John Gayer was arrested and imprisoned by the Mogal Governor 

! of Surat at the instigation of Sir Nicholas Waite, who, in 

i order to undermine the influence and work of the old East 

j India Company, whose representative Sir John Gayer was, 

I misrepresented matters, and said, that the piracy in the Indian 

! seas was the work of Sir John Gayer and his old Company. Sir 

John Gayer being made prisoner, Sir Nicholas Waite was appointed 

Governor of Bombay by the Home authorities. Sir John Gayer 

continued long in prison. 

I will finish this account of the early English trade at Surat, 
with a brief account of the different East India 
The East Companies, formed, one after another. This 
Mut ompa- account will enable us to be in a better position 
^f to determine the time of Eustam Manock' s 

appointment as a broker of two of them, (a) In 1589, some 
merchants submitted a memorial to Queen Elizabeth for a license 
of 3 ships to trade with India. The license was given in 
1591 and Capt. Raymond started with three ships. This 
trade-expedition was followed in 1596 by another expedition. 
The merchant adventurers then thought of forming a regular 
association for trade. Queen Elizabeth, on being applied to 
granted, on 31st December 1600, a charter for the purpose. This 
association formed the London Company which was "the first 
establishment of an English East-India Company."^^ The Company 
was "to be managed by a governor and twenty-four Committees".^ 
Licenses were also "issued to individuals for private trade.' '^^ 
" The Company formed, by degrees, factories in India, and ulti- 
mately reached such a degree of prosperity, that various attempts 
were made to induce the Crown and Parliament to revoke their 
charter, with no other object than that the petitioners themselves 
' 25 An Analysis of the Constitution of the East India Company, by Peter 
Auber(1826), p. 718. 

26 The members were then designated as Committees (Peter Auber's 
East India Company (1824), p. 195). The Analysis of the Constitution of the 
East India Company by Peter Auber, 1826, p. ix. 

27 Hid, p. X. 

116 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

should be elected into an exclusive Company." But this attempt 
*" failed. In 169 3, the Company failed to pay " a duty of five per cent, 
on their capital stock " imposed upon them in the time of William 
and Mary. So, their charter was revoked. A new charter was 
given with the condition that " it should be determinable on three 
years ' notice."^ 

(h) In 1698, Great Britain, having had wars with foreign powers, 
was obliged to borrow money. This led to the formation of another 
Company called " English East India Company,'' chiefly formed 
of those who helped the Government by subscribing money for the 
loan for the war. The Act, permitting the formation of this new 
Company, provided, that the Government had the right of closing 
both the Companies — the new and the old — in 1711 . It is said, that 
the Tories favoured the Old Company and the Whigs, the New 
Company.^ As was the custom in those early times in case of private 
biUs, that the parties must, with the permission of the Parliament, 
wait upon His Majesty to pray for his approval, the Governor and 
Committees waited upon the King at Kensington on 8th March 1699. 
The King sanctioned the formation of the Company, but " recom- 
mended an union of the two companies to their serious consideration, 
as it was his opinion that it would be most for the interest of the 
Indian trade." ^ 

(c) The King's advice began taking shape in July 1702 
and, "after much preliminary discussion, an Indenture 
Tripartite (called the Charter of Union) was passed under the 
great seal.' '^^ The movement took shape in 1708 and both the com- 
panies were amalgamated under the name of "The United Company 
of Merchants of England trading with the East Indies," its brief 
name being, " The United East India Company." The United 
Company had 24 managers, known as directors, twelve to be 
selected from each Company. The first Court of the United Company 
was held on 25th March 1709 and the first 24 Directors were 
elected on 15th April 1709. 

This United Company lent to Government without interest] 
£1,200,000, in heu of the right of exclusive trade for 15 years. In. 

28 Ibd. 

29 Robert Grant's Sketch of the History of the East India CompMiy,] 
1813, p. xxxvi. so Jbid, p. 196. 3i ibid,'p. 197. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 117 

1722, the period of the exclusive right was extended upto 1733. 
In 1730, this right was further extended upto 1766, for which 
extended exclusive right, they gave to Government £200,000 and 
consented to charge a reduced rate of interest, viz., 4 per cent, on 
the present and the past debts amounting to £3,200,000. The 
rate for the past debt was 8 per cent.^^ In 1744, the period of the ex- 
clusive right was again extended by 14 years, t.e., upto (1766+14=) 
1780, and they lent to Government a further sum of £1,000,000 
at 3 per cent. In 1750, the United Company agreed to a reduction 
from 4 to 3 per cent, of the former loan of £3,200,000. The total 
sum, known as the East India annuities, amounted to £4,200,000, 
and the annual amount of interest at 3 per cent. , which the Company 
received, came to £126,000. In 1781, the exclusive right of 
trading was continued upto 1794. In 1793, the exclusive right of 
trade with China and in Tea was continued to the Company till 
1813, but the exclusive right for trade with India was cancelled 
and the right was opened to the public. 

A Few Dates I give below a list of the principal events in 

about the Advent connection with the advent of the English in 

of Europeans, . » 

and among them, India . 

of the English to 


The Crusades which brought Europe into some 
close contact with the East 1095-1291 

The Portuguese under Vasco de Gama discovered the 
sea-route to India via Cape of Good Hope . . . . 1500 
|B The first Englishman (Father Thomas Stevens) to land 
in India, though not as ' a merchant, but to work 
with the Jesuits at Goa 1578 

The Portuguese had a monopoly of trade with India 
upto 1580 

Queen Elizabeth gave a charter to the Levante or the 
Turkey Company . . . . . . . . . . 1581 

The advent, via overland route of Aleppo, Basra and 
Ormaz, of the first band of English merchants — New- 
berry, Fitch, Leeds and others — as merchants of the 

32 Ibid, p. 17. 

118 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Turkey Company, witli a letter from Queen Elizabeth 

to Emperor Akbar . . . . , . 

A few English Merchants submitted a Memorial to 

Queen Elizabeth for a License for 3 ships to trade 

with India 
The License was granted and Captain Kaymond started 

with 3 ships. This was the first trade Expedition. 

The Dutch began trading with the East 

Another (second) English Trade Expedition 

Few English Merchant-adventurers applied to Elizabeth 
for a Charter to form a Trade Association. This led 
to the foundation of the first establishment under the 
name of the London East India Company . . 31st Dec. 

Arrival of Middenhall, who came by land route, as an 
authorised messenger from Queen Elizabeth, and 
who was given permission to trade 

The arrival of the very first English vessel. Hector, under 
Commander Hawkins at Suwalli (Sumari) near Surat 1608 

The arrival at Jahangir's Court of Hawkins, who came 
with King James' letter . . . . . . . . 1609 

Hawkin's stay at Jahangir's Court. He was refused 
permission for a factory at Surat . . . . 1611 

The English first established a Factory at.Masalipatam. 1611 

The English settled at Surat for the first time after the 
naval defeat, at the hands of Captain Best, of the 
Portuguese, who had become very powerful at the 
Mogal Court. This was the foundation of the first 
English kothi or Factory at Surat. The firman of 
trade was given by Jahangir to Edwards . . . . 1612 

Two English Factors went with King James' letter 
to Jahangir, but were not successful . . . . 1613-1614 

On good reports from Captain Best about the trade 
with India, the East India Company raised a better 
fleet and arranged to send Sir Thomas Roe, as ambas- 
sador. He landed at Surat . . . . September 1615 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 119 


An unsuccessful attempt of the Dutch to found a Factory 

at Surat 1616 

The first Dutch Factory founded at Surat by Peter van 

den Bracke, who became its first President^^ . . 1620 

The first Dutch Factory foimded at Agra with Francisco 

Palsaort at its head . . . . . . . . . . 1621 

Marriage Treaty of Charles II and Catherine . . 23rd Jime 1661 
The English took possession of Bombay from the hands 

of the Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . 1665 

The Company's Broker at Surat was a Bania^ . . . . 1678 

I The first London East India Company, having failed to 
pay " a duty of 5 per cent, on their capital stock, its 
Charter was revoked in the time of William and Mary." 
A new Charter was given, on condition, that it may be 
revoked in 3 months' notice 1693 

The formation of the 2nd Company, the English East 
India Company, the Government reserving the right 
of closing both the Companies in 1711 . . . . 1698 

The founders of the New Company waited, according 
to custom, upon the King, when the Ejng advised 
that both the Companies may be united . . . . 1699 

The arrival of Sir Nicholas Waite as the first President 
of the New Company at Surat . . . . . . . . 1699 

The movement to unite the two Companies according 

to the King's advice, began . . . . . . . . 1702 

The movement finally took shape and both the Com- 
panies were united under the name of "The United 

East India Company " 1708 

The first Court of the United Company was held on 25th 
March 1709, and the first 24 Directors elected on 15th 
April 1709. The right of Exclusive trade was given 
for 15 years upto 1724 1709 

33 "The Empire of the Great Mogal" (De Imperio Magni Mogolis), 
De Laet, translated by J. S. Hoyland and annotated by S. N. Bannerjee 
(928), Introduction, p. IV. This work is spoken of as "a complete Gazetteer 
Jahangir's India," {Ibid, p. vi.) 

ts* Orme's Historical Fi^agments (1805), p. 72. 


120 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


The Period of Exclusive trade extended upto 1733 . . 1722 

Tliis Period of Exclusive trade again extended upto 
1766 .. 17^0 

Tliis Period of Exclusive trade again increased by 14 
years, i.e., upto (1766+14=) 1780 1744 

The United Company had lent money to British 
Government. The interest over these Loans, which 
amounted to £3,200,000, was reduced from 4 per cent, 
to 3 per cent. The total sum known as " The East 
India Annuities " amounted to £4,200,000 . . . . 1750 

The Period of Exclusive trade for the East India 
Company was further increased upto 1794 . . 1781 

The right of Exclusive trade with India was cancelled 
(though that with China and that of the tea trade was 
continued upto 1813) 1793 


The Persian Poem, Qisseh^i-'Rustam Manock, i.e., The Life 
Story or History of Rustam Manock. 

Now we come to the second object of our paper, viz., to give 
an account of the life of Rustam Manock. 

For the account of the life of Rustam Manock, we have, besides 

some stray materials found here and there, a 

The Quisseh. Persian poem, entitled Quisseh-i-Rustam Manock 

(v_X>U Sm.^ ^5) i.e., the History or Life-story of 

Rustam Manock, written by Mobed Jamshed Kaikobad. It speaks 
of several historical events relating to Emperor Aurangzeb, Shivaji 
and the English and Portuguese factories ; so, it is a contemporary 
historical document, which, though not of unusually great historical 
value, is important as a document presenting a Parsee view of the 
events. I will give, the Qisseh in Persian. I will give, later on,| 
a full summary of its contents and will then examine, how far its 
account of the historical events- is suppgrted by historical works. 
I will first speak here of the Author and the Date of the Qisseh. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 121 

The author of the Qisseh is Jamshed Kaikobad. Unfortunately, 

Dastur Minochehr, the editor of the poem, 

of whom I will speak a little later on, while 

The Author preparing a correct text of it, seems to have done 

of the Qisseh, away with its original collophon or concluding 

lines, wherein the author must have given, in his 

own words, his name, residence, date, etc. 

However, it is well, that Minochehr has given, in his own words, 

the author's name, place and date. From this, we learn that 

the author of the Qisseh lived at Surat, and that he wrote this 

Qisseh in 1080 Yazdazardi (Samanin alif. c. 590)^5 i.e., 1711 A.C. 

Jamshed Kaikobad, was, as he Himself says in the Qisseh^®, 

the tutor of Nowrozji, Eustam Manock's third son, who, as we will 

see later on, was the first Parsee to go to London in 1723 and 

whose name is often referred to in the above-mentioned East 

India Company's documents. We see, from the date given above, 

that Jamshed Kaikobad wrote his account of the life of Rustam 

Manock, 10 years before the death of Rustam who died in 1721 A.C. 

No original manuscript in the hand of the author has come 

down to us. There may be, somewhere, a copy or 

The Mss. of copies of the author's own original, but I have 

e y*5s . ^^^ come across any. Several copies existed 

in 1845. The story of the text, as I give 

it, is as follows : In 1214 A.Y., i.e., 1845 A.C, Manockji 

Merwanji Seth, the sixth in descent from Rustam Manock, saw and 

possessed several copies of the original Qisseh as written by the 

author Jamshed Kaikobad. He requested Ervad (afterwards 

Dastur) Minochehr Edalji Jamaspasa,^^ to prepare a correct text 

out of the several copies then existing. Minochehr did so. In the 

text prepared by him, Minochehr says, that there were several 

copies of the Qisseh but they were found incorrect from the point 

*^ 0. in this paper means couplet, j ^ ^ u u-ii I ju Uj J l_ , vvf 

3« c. 306. ^ ,^:^^[^ j^;y O^ I e;T j) 
t.c, of those (three sons) Nowroz is my pupiL 

37 Born 1808. Came to Dasturship on 22nd February 1861 on the death 
of his father. Died within 8 months on 20th October 1861. 

122 ' Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh 

of view of the meter (bi-kaideh, c. 59) ; that that was due to ignorant 
copyists (^^ ^ jjj U JJli ^^ Uil I ^ U c. 592); that therefore, Manocls^i 
MerwanjijtheSethof thetime, the head of the anjuman (community) 
of Mobads, showed these copies to several learned men who all 
declared them to be faulty (c. 593) ; that he then entrusted the 
work to him (Minochehr, the son of Dastur Edalji, surnamed 
Jamaspasana) ; that Manockji Seth said to him, "You prepare 
another Qisseh according to the old one ;" and that therefore this 
Qisseh is one based upon the old one. Minochehr gives the year of 
his own work as the year ghariji^ { -a.;^ ), i-^-, 1214 Yaz- 
dazardi (c. 610), i.e., 1845 A.C. 

The revised and corrected text so prepared by Minochehr, long 
remained unpublished. Then, the late Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth, who 
was the eighth in descent from Rustam Manock and was the elder 
brother of the above Kavasji Seth, published it in 1900, in a book 
which was printed for private circulation and which was entitled, 

{i.e., the descending line of the Seth family and a brief account 
with a genealogical tree and photographs). In very few copies 
of this publication, he has published a lithographed text, in 36 
pages, of the Qisseh, as prepared by Minochehr. I am told that 
only three copies of the text were published. The text, which I 
give at the end of my paper, is a copy prepared from that 
publication, with my collation here and there from other copies. 

The Te2 1, as prepared by Minochehr^ has been transliterated 
and translated^ into Gujarati. The transliterator and translator 
does not give his name, but, it appears from what is stated at the 
end of the lithographed copy published by Mr. Jalbhoy Seth, that 
the transliteration and translation were also the work of the above 
mentioned Minochehr. I produce for inspection a well-written 
copy of it, kindly presented to me some years ago, by a member 
of the Jassawala family, bearing, in the beginning and at the end, 
a stamped inscription saying " Presented by the late Mr. Rustomji 
Jamsetjee Jassawala's family 1905." This copy bears the title ^i^H 

38 Gharij means wine. Ghariji is a cup-bearer. (Steingass) This 
chronogram comes to 1214, according to the ah^ad method : 

^ = 1000 + l = l+; = 200 + ^ = 3 + ^_5'=10= 1214. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 123 

>A^?i' ^li ^^ciH Mii^i^i i^^i54§^£5 t?:^?, %$l»^l oi<i^^i, i.e., this 
(Qisseh of Seth Rustam Manock prepared by Manochehrji Dastur 
Edalji. From this Gujarati transliterated copy, a Persian text has 
been reproduced by Dastur Erachji Sohrabji Meherji Rana. The 
Original of it exists in the Dastur Meherji Rana Library. I am 
thankful to the authorities of the library for lending it to me to take 
a copy^®. Dastur Erachji says in his Ms., that he has rendered the 
text into Persian from a Manuscript of the text written in Gujarati 
characters, belonging to Seth Kaikhosru Rustamji*®. He says : 

At the end of the lithographed copy, as given in the book 
published by Mr. Jalbhoy Merwanji Seth, there is a statement, that 
the text and its version (ma'ani), as prepared at the desire of Seth 
Manockji Merwanji, were examined and approved by Munshi 
Dosabhoy Sohrabji. This statement is followed by a certificate 
in Gujarati, dated 17th November 1845, and signed by Dosabhoy 
Sohrabji Munshi, saying that the verses and Gujarati translation 
are correct. 

As to the Qisseh itself, as it has come down to us, and as pub- 
lished in the lithographed text in the above mentioned book of 
Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth, it contains in all, 610 couplets. The first 
51 couplets are something like a Preface or Introduction, not wholly 
from the pen of Minochehr. Similarly, the last 23 couplets in the 
postscript are also from the pen of Dastur Minochehr. He 
announces the name of the autjior as Jamshed (c. 45). He says 
to himself : " Make new (i.e., bring into public notice afresh) 
what is said by Jamshed. Adorn the old bride with ornaments." 

39 I am thankful to Mr. Furdunji Manockji Pavri, B.A., for kindly 
making a copy of it for me some years ago. 

*o On my inquiring from Mr. Kaveisji Jalbhoy Seth, I am kindly 
informed that this gentleman traced his descent from Rustam Manock as 
follows : Rustam Manock — ^Bomanji — Khurshedji — Merwanji — Rustomji — 

124 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Summary o f the Qisseh. 

I propose examining the several historical events mentioned 
in the Qisseh in the order in which they are narrated in the Qisseh. 
So, I will first give here a brief summary of the Qisseh, in whicli 
the marginal headings refer to the different headings as given ii| 
the Qisseh. For guiding the reader, I occasionally give reference 
to the Qisseh by giving its couplet, abbreviated as ' C '. 

The Qisseh begins without any special heading. The first 
51 couplets form an Introduction. Of these, 
Introduction. the first 29 couplets are in praise and prayer of 
God. They seem to be the composition of the 
author Jamshed or an adaptation from his verses. In those times, 
all such writings began with praise of God ; so, Jamshed's poem 
cannot be an exception. These 29 couplets say, that God is the 
maker of nine celestial orbs (huqqa, c. 5), one under another(tutuq)^^, 
which are bedecked with stars, some of which are moving^^. The 
terrestrial globe (muhra-i-khak) was suspended (mu'allaq) over 
waters and the creation was made out of the four elements^^. 
From the 30th to the 44th couplet, Dastur Minochehr, the revisor, 
asks for God's blessings upon his work, upon the soul of the author 
Jamshed Kaikobad who composed the poem (c. 32) and then upon 
himself. Then he asks himseK (c. 45) to look sharp in his work. 
The story proper of the Qisseh begins from couplet 52. 

Rustam was the son of Manock. He was descended from 

Mobads (c. 54) and was an inhabitant of Surat. 

Praise and jj^ ^g^g g^ luminary (saraj) among Zoroastrians. 

Rustam. He was benevolent and charitable like Hatim 

(c. 56). Every year, he supplied to the poor food 

and clothing (c. 68). He also supported the rehgion of God (din-i- 

KJiuda, i.e., Zoroastrianism, c. 72). His face was briUiant like 

that of Jamshed. In dignity, he was like Kaikhosru (c. 74.) He 

was virtuous like Faridun and illustrious like Tahmuras (c. 75). 

In courage he was like Rustam, the son of Zal, the ruler of Kabul 

41 Tutuq, curtain, coats of an onion ; sky. 

42 " Harrakat azan chandra bar guzasht". 

43 ^ Isri^**'^ I " the (four) opposites, i.e., the elements" (Steingass). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 125 

and Zabul (cc. 76-78). What Rustam was to Iran in those 
times, he (Rustam Manok) was to all at this time (c. 79). He waup 
the leader of Mobads andBehdins (^'.e., priests and laymen, c. 81). 
Through him, our (Parsee) people commanded respect among other 
communities. There were kings from the time of Kayomars upto 
Yazdjard, but they all are dead ; but no, they are living through 
him (c. 85). He, one of their descendants, has pleased them in 
heaven by his good deeds (c. 86). He is like a king (Shah) in the 
country of India (c. 87). The author then prays for and blesses 
Rustam Manock (cc. 87-108). One of his blessings is that God may 
grant, that he may live as long, as the Sun, Moon and Stars shine in 
the sky (c. 91).** Then he prays that all his descendants (za farz- 
and-i-farzand) may always be joyful. From couplet 108 begins the 
narration of the events of Rustam Manock' s life. 

The first event described is the tax of Aurangzeo's 

{\) Relieving Par- Jaziyeh. It is described under the following 
sees from the burden 
of the Jaziya. head : *^ 

^yk^)^ /^>^ uU' ; '^y. ^'^^ ^>f" ^'t^ ^^)^•*";^ f ^-r^ij 

i.e. This, in the description of Seth Rustam Manock, that in the 
time of King Aurangzeb, there was the tax of jaziyeh (capitation 
tax) imposed upon Parsees. The above Seth got the Parsees 
relieved from that capitation tax. 

Here again, in the commencement of this narration of the 
jaziyeh tax, Minochehr has added a line of his own, stating that 
he said what followed from what was said by Jamshed ( ^a. J 
^j t^af ). The Qisseh thus speaks of the Jaziyeh : In the 
reign of Sultan Aurangzeb, there was the fearful (ba nahib*^) tax 

44 The maximum age prayed for in the Ashirvad or marriage-blessings 
is that of 150 years. In some places, we have a blessing for a life of over 
one thousand years (Hazar sal der bedar). There, the signification is that 
of the continuity of a long line of progeny. Here also the signification seems 
to be the same, because in the next couplets, he prays for continuity of joy 
among children and grandchildren. 

45 I give the heading from Dastur Erachji's Ms. wherein it is clear. 

46 Nahib also means " plundering, a spoiler" (Steingass). 

126 ^Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

of jaziyeh on Zoroastrians. The poor, the orphans and others 
suffered from its oppression. They went to Rustam and prayed 
to be relieved from its burden. They said that the incidence of 
the Jaziyeh weighed heavily and brought distress to them and their 
children. They were harmed and oppressed in its collection. 
They req nested him to relieve them from this tax . Rustam complied 
with their request and went to the great Diwan. He gave him a 
certain large sum annually and took the responsibility of annual 
payment { zummeh /v«i ) of the tax over himself (c. 122). 
They all blessed Rustam for this generosity. 

The next subject is that of Rustam relieving 

the poor of other commui^ities also from the bur- 

Relieving the den of the Jaziyeh*''. The author says as follows 

poor of other on the subject : — When this act of generosity 

frTmlhtburden ^^ Rustam Manock was generally known, all 

of Jaziyeh. c. praised him. There were many poor of other 

134: seq. communities (qaom-i-digar, c. 136) who were 

imprisoned for the non-payment of the Jaziyeh. 

Their wives and children went to Rustam Manock and said that 

their husbands and fathers were imprisoned, because they were 

very poor and could not pay the tax (cc. 140-41) 

'/" u'^y^ ft ^ "^^^^ r^ 

They added, that tax-collectors (muhassal, c. 142) 
were appointed to collect Jaziyeh from them, i.e. (women and 

47 The subject is headed thus in Dastur Erachji's Ms. : 

i.e. This (subject) is in the matter of the description (or praise) of Rustam 
Manock. Several persons from the community of another religion (jud-dinan) 
were arrested by the hands of the Governor. The above Seth released 
them also from prison. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 127 

children) also. Again, these tax-collectors speak in a vile tone, 
(zabun) with them. When Rustam heard these grievances, he 
had compassion upon them and he told Noshirwan,^® who was his 
deputy (or assistant, naib, c. 150), to go to the Diwan and pay the 
tax for those poor people and release them from imprisonment. 
Several thousands (of Rupees ^ 1^ ts/rf*^ c- 1^^ ) ^^^^ spent 
and the poor freed from the tax. The poor blessed Rustam Manock 

1. e., May God keep you and your children's wealth in plenty and 
may you live long. 

Then the author, Jamshed, refers to a Persian book Sad-dar 
Nazam and says that, according to that book, one who helps the 
poor and relieves them from the Jaziyeh tax is blessed by God 
and his angels (cc. 162-65). 

The author then refers to the sack of Surat 
Sa k f ^Surat ^^ Shiva ji, and to Rustam Manock's kindness to 
c. 69 et seq. help the poor during that time of distress. He 

speaks of this under the following heading : 

Oil^ (^-^; <^>^'*' yt^ \:)^ ^ f ^j^ jl e;«>l*> r>^ 

I.e., the giving of the oppressive tax (zubnaneh), on behalf of the 
people of the city, by Seth Rustam at the time of Shiveh Ghani. 

48 1 cannot identify this Noshirwan. He seems to be the same Noshirwan 
who is referred to , later on , as receiving Rustam Manok as his guest at Naosari. 

49 Dastur Eraohji's copy gives the heading as follows : 

sj:^j ^^J )d ^^j ol^ ^UUi ^1^ tj^^l f J ^y. ^<^^) 

128 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

The account in the Qisseh, of this sack of Surat, is, in brief, as 
"tollows : Once, there came upon the city (of Surat) Shiveh ghani 
like Ahriman. He arrested from all directions (as hostages for pay- 
ment) women, men and children. He carried away also as booty 
silken cloth [^^ U5 qumash) and gold and silver and household 
furniture ( J'^ ) and j ewellery . From such a confusion (gir o dar 
)]d jj$ f^ there was a general flight ( ^ / ) in the city, 
in the villages and in the zillahs (f^-^). Again, he set fire 

here and there. Those who were taken prisoners sent a word to the 
city that, unless the fine of release (zulamaneh)^^ was paid, there was 
no chance of release. The people went to Eustam Manock and said 
(c. 184 ei. seq) : "We are distressed and helpless from the terror 
of Shiveh ghani. He has destroyed all our goods and property. 
He has imprisoned the males of our families and he beats them 
oppressively. He asks from every person spurious^^ (or oppres- 
sively large) oppressive tax (zulmaneh). He asks from all ten 
thousand (deh alif) rupees. We are not in a position to give the 
oppressive fine, which he asks. He has come up like a Ahriman 
and become the enemy of the city and villages. He has an army of 
50,000 soldiers and there are, at the head of the army, two persons 
as extorters (gir o dar, lit. those who say, seize and hold). One is 

Ahujiban ( i^^^^l ) and the other Divyan ( i^^j^>^)' 
He has become the enemy of the sect of Zoroastrians. These two 
persons have destroyed many villages by pillage. They have 
carried away from every house gold and jewellery and apparel and 
grain as pillage, and then they have set fire to the houses. They 
have killed several people and have tied the hands of some over 
their backs. We are some of those who have run away from him." 
Thus describing the distress, they requested Rustam Manock to help 
them. Rustam was grieved to hear this and he gave Rs. 10,000 
for their release (c. 216) and also supplied food, money and clothing 
for them. 

50 Lit. " Seize and hold ". 

^^ Zulmaneh seems to be a fine or ransom for the release of persons. 
^^ Na-khelaf, dastardly, wicked, spurious, villainous. What is meant 
oppressively large". 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 129 

The author then narrates the following story of King Minochehr 
Sh' " and ^^^ Aghreras. Afrasiab (the Turanian King),' 
Afrksidh, and at one time, winning a victory, killed Naodar, 
Rusiom Manock the Iranian king, and imprisoned his wise officers. 
He then ordered, that they also may be killed. 
Then, the victorious Aghreras interfered and asked for their release 
from the King, saying that they were innocent. So, Afrasiab 
countermanded his order of killing them and gave them in charge 
of Aghreras. Aghreras (privately) sent a messenger to Zal-i-Sam 
that he may send Keshwad with an Iranian army to set free the 
Iranians from his prison. The Iranians came for their relief, and 
Aghreras, under some excuse, absented himself from the palace 
and went to the court of Afrasiab. Keshwad restored all the 
Iranians to liberty and carried them to Zabul. Afrasiab on 
coming to know the true state of affairs, killed Aghreras. ^^ Our 
author then names Firdousi and quotes some of his lines. He 
then adds, that he mentioned this episode to illustrate the 
good action of Rustam Manock. In this case, Rustam Manock 
was like the virtuous Aghreras, and ghani Sivaji like the wicked 

(3) The Account Then follows an account of Rustam Manock's 

toc^T^'lj^ri- charities, &c., under the following heading : 

i.e., on (the subject of) the repose and comfort of men and on the 
performance of acts of charity, and one's own duty.^* 

53 This Agreras is the Agraeratha of the Avesta (Yt. XIH, 131, Yt. IX, 
22 ; Yt. XIX, 77). Vide for the above story and other particulars about this 
Agr6ras my "Dictionary of Avestic Proper Names," pp. 7-10. 

54 Dastur Erachji's text has a long heading which says : "In the matter 
of the work of bequests of charity" (auquaf pi. of waqf, hke) the building of 
bridges by Seth Rustam on the banks oi waters of rivers and on desolate 
(kharab' places ; laying out of gardens and buildings ; and building of big 
wells everywhere for the repose and comfort of men and the performance 
of acts of righteousness and one's own duties. 

130 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Among the good works of Kustom Manock, mentioned under 
x^this heading, we find the following : — 

1. He got some roads put in good order. 

2. He got pucca chunam bridges built over water-courses. 

3. He brought under cultivation and gardening, desolate 

unused (kharij) land. 

4. He built great buildings with beautiful gardens with 

water-courses (Kariz yj) If ) ^^ and f avareh 
( »^Iy fountain c. 264).^^ 

5. He built a building with a surrounding garden for the 

charitable use (waqf) of Zoroastrians to be used by 
them for marriage and Jashan occasions ^"^ (c.c. 

6. He built in the city and in the villages wells for ^^ pure 

(zalah) water. 

7. He got built reservoirs (hauj) for water for the cattle. 

8. He got performed in the Dar-i-Meher religious ceremonies 

like the Vendidad, Visparad, Yasht and Hamast 
(c. 280), daily Darun in honour of the Ameshaspands 
and Asho Farohars, Herbad, Getikharid, Naojote, 
Zindeh ravan.^^ 

9. He helped the poor for the marriage of their children. 

10. He helped the Dasturs and the Mobads, i.e., the clergy. 

56 The Gujarati translator translates karez by il^*«*i 

56 It appears from a long description of these buildings that they were 
ntended for his own self and not for charity, 

57 I think this is the place still known as the Panohayet ni wadi. 

68 Vide below for the inscription on one of such wells, at Hajira near 

59 Vide for these ceremonies, my ** Religious Ceremonies and Customs of 
fhe Parsees ", 

Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 131 

We find in the above account of Rustam's good works, his 
AvquHil Du work of changing desolate ground into good gar- 
^r^Tl to Rus. den ground (cc. 260-270).*' I think that Anquetil 
tanCs Garden. Du Perron, in the Discours Preliminaire of his 

Zend Avesta (p. 361) refers to this garden. While speaking of the 
burning ground of the Hinflus, Anquetil says : " Get endroit 

60 I recently made enquiries about the place of this garden from 
Mr. Manockshah C. Petigara, the Secretary of the Parsee Panchayet of Surat 
In his letter, dated 30th July, in reply to my letter of 26th July 1929, he 
says :'• ?i&C> ili^lW ><^wl^w <{i\<ti^ ^tfl^ rt«*l warn «»tR wltl ^l<\\ ^m{ \\<\[ ^^- 

'•^>f1'H<Ml3| i^l^ 5<ij «r»ni Vi94ri[ ^><i^ wtiaicn *Hl^€ll D w ^^rt U^H*^ a><l<«$ 
tl4 Si M\^a 9. 5i «^am><( aHiaiai <H^dM( Ulgli «J^i |^l nirtl* ^ni Hxw d^iW^ 

aMl^ «5. aii «r5j4l a>ii»t$ X© «ilui a^d d 3l% e|\>tfi -^m^H Tu d<l$i€? o<>i*ic? 
«»s1C4dl Mi^i^ ^^ b'**9HM{ Hiai i§dl v\7\ ^i€l>i( 5*1 o^iJirO wj^l^i Pcil>(| dl^iniai ><'il. 
^dl ^inil^i*"' =l4di«t1 HiilHl a>1l'4ii<*= ^iMd M^it '>1|Ji^'l«l€lC ^l,Sl^l«rdl ^^d*>ii 
D. 5< «r-Mlt>ii ^.$i ^QMld $ d^ARl S^a* A^' «4<J- d*(l hV^ ^- XHo) <ll^^li ^l^ 
aiiSjl^ ^Mrfl i^il ><lJ «i4eil *ii^ vm.m 15 w>l( 4Hl^ ^«ll< «tR 15 anR 5i orJitiiM- 

Js add ^Hl^ i\\ »*i^^ d(>idl ^^m? 5? 4^=«iyfl H»l d«t>i €l«l^ adlH 5 R <1^ ^«t$l 
^TjShi dl^qi ><i? dll «<i'd aM«i' c«*' «t«t S. Sj ansv^'t'l wau^inl ^eiMUl (^Hi^- 
5J<il<i3" ^'HMI^) dl w'f'll ^ wili ^l*|5J<trii yi^i tHiCA«li>i{ a^iq & R a>li^? «d^" 
H'€li«0 S^ 15 add 5^ iH»;t w-aiui aMV9l$iM' ^^C-idl ^^1 tl^llSi id$l«d^ ^C-ldl dt?*- 
>ii«ir an qetl D ^^dl Mi^ JCiHlil ^ f«lt«fl adl^? ^oo Moi«i |^ aH^N^dl JHI^ D: 
\il« i?il ilfel i^^tl ad«i^ «•<! d«ll H^^* {dlJ|>li a>ii3icHi q^dMl ^^lajlif «H"3l<aiSll \idl 
Hiai <Sl^ §li5 r\<l. 

^ai^^oil'ldi ^i€idi ^yicii«i«(l a>)>i m^iM y\lJs ^ aniaiCHl -si^d^ii ad tHi>i «^ii^dl 
itM«M*ii mai »i^$il a^d ^Riii^ a>i^t<i^ «|^d ddl >il^' J^li^Ul «d««l>4i Sie a>ti>l^i 
and ^^ixl dl^l«il2i 5l an^"^^^ «dt4l§^ H^ M^t'd n2li«l1 rtd^ ^Idldl y'li. S?d "MlH'' 
i^ ^ R aH<"^^i^ri ^i ani^-Ml ^il | 5?dl tJli iJilaHiniil it^ld Hl«*6l^l d an^J H ^i^li 

\ji« H131 «d ^\\R\\ tdi^if^nl j^"'ddi >ii»a^ ^- ' 

I beg to thank Mr. Kavasji Burjorji Vakil, the President of the 
Parsee Panchayet of Surat, and his Secretary Mr. Manocksha Petigara for 
aU the information they have given me in reply to my inquiries about 
Rustam Manock. 1 had the pleasure of visiting Surat, as Mr. Kavasji's 
guest, in November 1928, when 1 had the pleasure of visiting several places 
of Surat connected with the name of Rustam Manock, and 1 take this 
opportunity to thank him for all his kindness in helping me in my 

132 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

se nomme Poulpara ; il est sur le bord du Tapti, 
au-dessous du Jardin da Parse Eoustoum, celebre par les belles 
fleurs qu'il produit, et oii les Habitants de Surate, Naturels et 
Etrangers, vont souvent prendre le plaisir de la promenade." i.e., 
This place is called Poulpara ; it is on the bank of the Tapti, 
below the garden of Parsi Koustam, known for the beautiful 
flowers which it produces and where the inhabitants of Surat — ^the 
Natives and Foreigners — go often to take promenade." 

Then follow some verses in praise of Rustam 

) J^f '^ J^ and his three sons, under the following heading 
his Three Sons. ^ - .. . «i 

(c. 298). «Su/ j.Uu; c>«x«. jJJ;l )d ^1 


This is what is said about the descendants of Rustam. 

Rustam Manock had three good sons. One was Framarz, 
the second Bahman, and the third Naoroz. Of these three, Naoroz 
is my pupil ( o^^ ^ )^^ and he is, like his father, handsome, 
good-natured and kind-hearted. May these sons be all auspicious to 
Rustam Manock and may there be many (f ara) children ( nurdidan ) 
in his house (khane).^^ He ( Rustam Manock ) has a virtuous, 
pious, handsome wife named Ratanbai. Rustam is fortunate in 
having such a wife (zauja) and such children. Then, the author 
Jamshed blesses Rustam Manock with the mention of the following 
past great worthies of ancient Iran, wishing, that he may be endowed 
with all their virtues ^^ : 

Gaiyomard^ Tehmuras ^ 

Hoshang ^ Jamshed * 

61 Dastur Erachji's heading runs thus : «— >*» ^ f^ ) ^^i*** ^~A>Cj ) d 

62 Avesta havishta, a disciple. 

63 ^.e.. May the family be blessed with grandchildren. N'Qjr-dldeh, 
" beloved child" (Steuigass. )^)' 

64 Vide, for these personages, my Dictionary of Avestic Proper 
Names (1892). (!)>. 4 (Gaya Maretan). (2) Ibid, p. 203. (3) Ihid, p. 93. 
{^)Ibid,^, 153. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 133 

Afridun (Faridun) ^ Adarbad Marasfand i» 

Minochehr « Jamasp (Hakim) 20 

Kaikobad ^ Tus 21 

Kaus 8 Zawar (Zah va re h ) 22 

Siavaksh^ ^ Zarir ^3 

Kai Khusrau 10 Rustam 2^ 

Gushtasp, son of Lonrasp ^1 Zal 25 

Isfandiar 12 Kersasp (son of) Asrat ^ 

Bahman^^ Milad 27 

Ardashir (Babakan) ^^ Giv 

Naoshirwan ^^ (son of Kobad) Framroz 

Khusro Parviz 1*^ Godrez, the father of TOsons 

Yazdazard ^^ Peshotan 

Dastur Ardai Viraf ^^ 

[b)Rusinm's first Then follows an account of Rustam Manock's 
Interview with 

the English. His contact with the English factory and of his being 

appointment as • , i •, i i i , ^ ^•, . 

a broker. His appomted its broker, under the followmg 

finding a house heading * 

for them. ° * 

i.e. In the matter of the English who came in the country of 
India to the city of Surat and the introduction of Seth Rustam 
with them and his becoming (their) broker®^. 

(5) Ibid, p. 99. (6) Ibid, p. 148. (7) Ibid, p. 53. (8) Ibid, p. 41. (») Ibid, p. 196. 
(^0) Ibid, p. 214. (11) Ibid, p. 4. (i2) Ibid, p. 194. (^3) Also known as Ardashir 
Daraz-dast (long- handed), identified with Artaxerxes Longimanus. (**) 
Artaxerxes. (15) Chosroes I. (16) Chosroes II. (17) The last Sassanian 
King. (18) The Visionary of the Ardai Viraf nameh. (19) The Author of a 
Pahlavi Pand-nameh. (20) The author of Jamaspi. (^i) Ibid, p. 27. 
(22) Brotherof Rustam. (23) FicZe my Dictionary of Avestic Proper Names, 
p. 83. (24) Vide Bundehesh Chap. XXXI 4. (25) Father of Rustam, 
Vide Shah-nameh. (26) yide my Dictionary of Avestic Proper Names 
p. 59. (27) Vide the Shah-nameh for this and the next four personages. Vide 
Justi's Iranischen Namen buch for some of these personages. 

■ 65 Dastur Erachji gives the heading as follows : — 
^^^J iil^ ^Jy^ s-ii>« j I ^jU*tOE-> ; ^ ^J >J /•> ) r^ ^ ^^ ' •> 

134 r Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

I will give my translation of the author's account of his first 

interview with the English factor and of the first house of the English 

factory at Surat in details : " The English (Angrez) came to Surat 

from their country, in splendour,with money (ganj ) and coins (dinar) . 

They came to India in ships in great caravans (i.e., fleets) by the 

way of the great sea (c. 340) . They came for noble or valuable (arj- 

mand) trade in the dress of great merchants. Seth Kustam visited 

them; the Kulah-push^^ (i.e., the hat-wearers i.e., the English),were 

much pleased with that visit. Within a short time, friendship 

(tavadad) increased between them, and, from union of colour (yak- 

rangi or one kind of pleasure or mode or manners) , they became united 

in heart (yak-del) and familiar (sur-mand)^^. They then made him 

their broker (dalal) and entrusted to him all their work. Then, 

he made enquiries (taffahus) for a palatial building for the residence 

(bashandeh) of the English., After many inquiries, (he found) 

a great building, great in height, length and breadth, as pleasant 

as that of the palace of Jam (Jamshed), with a large garden like the 

place of paradise (Iram)^^, which was heart-ravishing and situated 

on the bank of the river and which was well ornamented and 

decorated. (It was so healthy that) if a sick man lived there, 

his malady soon disappeared ; if one was tired of heat^^, he 

recovered by living there for a week ; if one complaining of an 

eye-complaint, went there, he recovered by its excellent air. 

The auspiciousness (baraqqat) of the place was such, that if a 

merchant, or a poor man or any man lived there and carried on 

his commercial business or his other trade there, God gave him 

success unobserved (az ghaib) and he become fortunate. "^^ 

It was a beautiful place and its climate (ab o hava) was fuU of 

66 In India, the first comers from Europe were generally known as the 
wearers of hats, their hats being quite distinct from the Indian turbans. Sir 
Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, the first Baronet, in his Kholasseh-i Panchat, similarly 
speaks of them as topi-wdld, i.e., those putting on topics or hats. He spoke 
of Indians, as pagdiwalas, i.e., those who put on turbans. I remember, hearing 
in my younger-days the word " topi-wala" colloquially used for Europeans. 

67 From sur banquet, pleasure, nuptials. 

68 Iram " the fabulous gardens said to have been devised by Shadad bin - 
' Ad, in emulation of the gardens of paradise"(Steingass). 

69 Perhaps what is meant is "suffered from prickly heat." 

70 This is an allusion to the belief that some houses are very lucky; 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 135 

nefit (afadat) and deserved praise (c. 355). This paradise-like 
place belonged to a merchant of Surat. His name Haji Hajaz 
B,eg is known and famous in many places (c. 347). He (Rustam) 
got this large building given to the English at a high rent. He 
fixed its rent at Rs. 3,000 per year. The English decorated it 
j,ccording to their own contrivance and at their own expense, 
as made, as it were, fit for royalty by many decorations. Then 
secret-knowing God made the good fortune of the English 
Bry brilUant." 

I) The Visit of Then follows an account (c. 363 ) of the visit 

stam Manocky 
in the company of Rustam Manock to the Court of Aurangzeb 

Factor, to the ^^ ^^^ company of the British factor under the 
C^rtoJAurang- following heading ^i : 

> »Ujij ^yosi ^JIjjM S-J^ ;i ;l e;*^/' o^fj J^ 

i.e., the going of Seth Rustam in the company of the habit 
wearing English to the Court (lit. service) of the King of Delhi 
and his requesting His Majesty on behalf of the English and 
obtaining a Royal mandate (manshur) from him. 

The account in brief runs as follows : In order to have 
an order (manshur c. 363), Rustam went with the Enghshman 
(angrez ) towards Delhi. At that time, the rule of Aurangzeb was 
like that of the brilHant sun (taban khur c. 365). Rustam sub- 
mitted the case of the English thus :" This man has come from the 
West (khavar) to India for commerce, but the Amirs of Your 
Majesty's exhalted court do not permit him (to live and 
trade) in the city. This Englishman is a good man and expects 

71 Dastur Erachji gives the heading as follows : 

}i/-^^ v«5'-^-^* ^•^Z ^^f. "-^^ f^) ^->^ ^-Sj ' v^ ;•> 
dS o^x I; xL^ y o^; ^^ sUi^Lf vJo^y ^^y» j^ )d 

*kotif kothif Factory. 

136 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

favour from the royal Court. He requests that, through 
the kindness of the King, they may give him a place where he 
can carry on his trade and have a store-house (ambar-khaneh) "• 
Before submitting this request, Rustam had pleased the 
King and his courtiers with rich and rare offerings of presents 
(nazraneh "^^ c. 380). Therefore his request was recommended for 
acceptance to the King by his courtiers. At that time, there was 
before the King, a Vazir named Asad Khan (c. 383). The King 
ordered him to give an order to the Englishman (kolah-posh). 
Asad Khan ordered a dabir (Secretary) to write out an order, that 
the Englishman may be allowed to have admittance in the city 
and to have a place for his house and factory and that his goods 
of merchandise were exempted from tax (zakat). The King then 
signed this order with his seal. The King entrusted the order to 
his minister Asad Khan who gave it to a messenger (cliawos) to be 
carried to the Englishman. The Englishman went in the direction 
of Surat and the Seth (Rustam Manock) went in another direction. 
He went out with his servants to see''^ different cities. 

He visited Dandeh Rajpore ( Jj^a. I; » Jj ) .3 ), Siddee Yaqoub 

{l)Rustam's visit (^y^ ^^ j.ju«) was the Governor (hakim) of the 
of D a n d eh ** " " i • i i • ^ ^ 

Rajpore, Da- place. He welcomed and treated right hospitably 

maun and Nao- Rustam Manock. When Rustam departed, he 

sari and return 

to Surat. gave him a dress of honour (khela'at). From 

there, he went to Damaun where a Portuguese padri^^ ( t^ ; j Ij 

72 This custom of nazraneh played a prominent part in the administration 
of the Moghal Emperors. It brought in a large revenue to them. The gross 
revenue of Aurangzeb was said to be £90,000,000, i.e., about Rs. 130 crores. 
In this source of income, the nazraneh played a prominent part. One can 
form an idea of this paypient from what Tavernier paid. " Ta vernier's 
present to Aurangzib on one single occasion amounted in value to 12,119 
livres, or over £900, and this was a trifle compared with the vast sums 
presented by the nobles to His Majesty on his birthday and other occasions." 
(Aurangzib by Stanley Lane Poole (1908), p. 126). 

73 Tafarruj, relaxation, enjoyment. 

74 Padri is a Portuguese word meaning "a Christian priest, a learned 
and good man" (Steingass). " The Portuguese word, Padre, was originally 
applied to Roman priests only. It is now the name given all over India to 
priests, clergymen, or ministers of all denominations." (Travels of F. Bernier 
by A. Constable (1891) p. 323, n. 1). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh . 137 

^Clj J ) was at the head (sar) of the administration. He entertained P 
5tustam hospitably and entrusted to him all his work (hame kar-i- 
khud). He also gave him a dress of honour (sarpav^^ c. 413). 

From there, he went to Naosari, where the elders (buzorgan) 
went out to receive him (pazireh). He entered Naosari in the 
company of the Anjuman (c. 415). There, he was the guest of a 
relative named Noshirwan^^. He went to the Dar-i-Meher urvisgah'^'^ 
and had a sacred bath at the hands of a pious priest. He drank 
Nirangdin^^ and became pure internally and externally. He then 
went to holy Atash Behram,"^^ and, after worshipping there, gave 
gifts (ashodad)^^ to the Dasturs and Mobads and to the poor. He 
sent (arsaul namud) rich presents to the leading men (raisan) and 
received rich presents in return. From there, he returned to Surat 
where his people, the great and the small, went out of the city to 
welcome him. He then paid a visit to the Nawab and opened 
before him the voyal farman which the King had given in favour 
of the English. The Nawab got it read by his Secretary (dab ir), 
and, with all respects, gave it into the hands of the English. The 
English sent it (the farman) to their Koyal Court at home (Vilayat, 
c. 427). The British King was pleased to see it and was pleased 
to learn that the hand of Rustam was in the transaction, and, as 
Rustam was the broker of the English, he was pleased to entrust 
work to him. 

75 The proper word is sar-a pa (from head to foot) " Ser-apah " or vesture 
from head to foot. (Bernier. Constable's Translation, p. 118). 

76 The Gujarati translator of the transliterated Gujarati text gives the 
name as Nosherwan Meherji (^m^'tH ^i^t?) 

77 For Dar-i-Meher and Urvis-gah, vide my " Rehgious Ceremonies 
and Customs of the Parsis" pp. 261-62 and 263-64. 

78 Vide Ibid, pp. 255-57. 

79 Vide Ibid, pp. 211-39. It was a custom, up to a few years ago, that 
those who went to pray before the sacred fire of the Atash Behram should 
have a bath before they went in. Rustam Manock had, instead of an ordinary 
bath, a higher or sacred bath, because he had a long travelling, when he could 
not observe all the required religious observances. 

80 Ibid, p. 407. 

138 c Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

(8) Release of the Then, we have an account of Osman Challb! undei 

f^,.^f ^T''' the foUowing head : 

Chalibi from ^ ^ * - ix 

the hands of the ^ f\yj ^ ic^i^ i^; ^^ ) ^ ^>^>i. ^-^ ) "^ 

PoHuguese, c. , ^ .* . , " ' . * ^j " .» i -.w 

4S2seq. U^*^-^/ ^^)^ )^ i^*^ L.J^ V*V« ;' -?' c/^ 

The account, in brief, runs as follows : There was a great 
well-known merchant at Surat, named Osman Chalibi. 
Among his many ships (fulkha), one ship (safineh) was verwj 
large and it was coming laden from Jeddah ( ^Joi. ). It was 
passing by an unbeaten path (hanjar) in the great sea. A 
ship of armour (armar)^^ belonging to the Christians'^ jj^^^ 
it and both the ships fought. Cannon (top) shots were fired 
by both. Many Portuguese (Farang) were killed. But, at last, 
turning their ship'^, they (the Portuguese) captured the 
ship of Osman and took all the men therein prisoners. They 
seized all goods and^cash (naqdi) of 4 lakhs. They took the ship 
to the port of Damaun. Osman who was a Turki by caste (jat) 
heard this and became very sorry. Amanat Khan was then the 
Nawab of Surat and Osman lodged a complaint before him. The 
Nawab simimoned (ahzar) all the mansabdars before him for 
consultation. The Nawab sent for Rustam and said : "In the 
matter of ships, strict conditions have been made with the 
Portuguese through you.®* Why have they violated the conditions 
and have captured the ship of Osman ? Rustam ! the affair can 
be set right at your hands . The Portuguese know you and they 
are enamoured of your name. They accept your word ; so, this 
affair will be set right by none but you. You get the ship of Osman 
released." Rustam undertook the solution of the affair. He 
went home and took many valuable things to be presented to 
the Portuguese and started for Damaun. Many members of the 

81 )^^ y is not a Persian word. It is persianized from English 
" (ship of) armour ". 

82 Tarsa. Here, the Portuguese are meant. The word is sometimes 
applied to Parsees also in the sense of fire worshippers. (Steingass). 

S3 gharab, " a kind of ship, grab". 

84 The Nawab of Surat had, on behalf of the Mogal Emperors, entered 
into some definite terms with the Portuguese through Rustam Manock, 
because he (Rustam) was the broker of the Portuguese also. 

Rustam Manock <md the Persian Qisseh 139 


Court of the Nawab went with Rustam upto the gate of the city 

to bid him farewell. Rustam, at first went to Naosari and prayed 

before the Atash Behram, asking for God's blessings upon his errand. 

Pious Mobads also joined him in the prayer for his success. Rustam 

presented money to the Mobads. Then, he left for Damaun, When 

he arrived at the outskirts of the town, the chief (salar), Captain 

Keran ( ^j\ ^^ ), came to know of his arrival. He sent a few 

great men to receive him. Going into Capt. Keran's court, he 

submitted his presents before him. Then, he went to the great 

Padri (high priest) and gave him also some presents. Rustam 

then narrated the case of the capture of Osman's ship 

and requested its release. He said : " Through me, you 

have given strong promises to the Moghals, that you would never 

capture Surat ships by force (jahd). To turn away from a promise 

is like turning away from one's religion (c. 493). The Christian 

(Portuguese) general replied : " The ship carried Turks (Turkian) 

on board and those Turks showed impudence (shokhi) to our people : 

they came running upon our people and killed and wounded some 

of our people. Then it was that our people captured the ship, 

and making prisoners of the men on it, brought it here. Now, our 

superior named Vijril ( Jj jsij ) is at Goa and I have informed 

him about this affair. If he gives permission, I will hand over 

to you the ship and its goods." Then Rustam asked his advice, 

as to what to do under the circumstances. Capt. Keran suggested 

that Rustam may go immediately to Goa before the superior officer 

Vijril, and he offered to give him a letter of recommendation. 

Rustam started with his men for Goa, with that letter. He 

same to Vasai ( J-'^j Bassein). There was in Bassein one 

Captain Saran ( ^^l**" ), who went outside the town to 
receive Rustam. Rustam explained to him what his mission was 
and said that he wanted to go to Goa with a letter of recommen- 
dation from Capt. Keran. Rustam stayed at his (Capt. Saran*s) 
place for full one day (rozi tamam) and Capt. Saran sent him raw 
(tam) articles of food ®^ and drink for him. 

85 ^J I akal eating. The Portuguese officer sent to Rustam uncooked 
articles of food instead of cooked ones, because upto about 50 or 70 years ago 
the Parsees did not eat food cooked by non-Parsees. 

140 Rustmn Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Rustam left Bassein next morning when Capt. Sarai 
presented to him a suite of dress and also gave him a recomj 
mendatory letter. When Rustam reached Goa, Vijril came 
know of the arrival ^^ of their broker (dalal, c. 528), and he senj 
some men of position to receive him. On appearing before him] 
Rustam gave him some valuable presents (c. 437). Then, Rustai 
narrated the object of his visit and gave him the above-mentione( 
two letters of recommendations. Vijril heard him patiently and 
asked him to have patience, and to stay there for some time. 
Rustam stayed there for nine months, passing his time in plea- 
sure and prayer. During that period, he sent for, from Surat, 
other rich articles to be presented to some leading men at Goa. 
During his visit, he built in Goa a large fine two-storied (domahlla) 
house with a garden round it. He then entertained Vijril with 
his chieftains in that house. The news of his arrival at Goa 
and of all the affairs reached the Portuguese King at Portugal 
(ci^^tJ )'^ .....L-^iy i^^ c. 560),^^ who was pleased to know of 
his arrival at Goa. In the end, Vijril returned to Rustam Manock 
the ship of Usman with all its contents. Rustam was also pre- 
sented with a dress of honour. Rustam returned to Surat in 
the above ship of Osman Chalibi. The Nawab of Surat was much 
pleased with the success of Rustam' s mission and gave him a 
dress of honour. Then Osman Chalibi also came to Rustam 
and gave him a dress of honour from himself. 

The Kisseh proper ends with couplet 583. The rest of it 
(584-610) is a post-script from the pen of Dastur Minochehr, wherein 
he gives the name of the author as Jamshed Kaikobad and its date 
as 1080 A. Y. He adds that as the existing copies of the qisseh 
were incorrect, and as, here and there, the couplets were not in 
proper meter, owing to the fault of the copyists, at the desire 
of Manockji Merwanji Seth, he (Minochehr, son of Edalji surnamed 
Jamaspasa) revised it, re-writing it in some places. He gives the 
date of his revision, as said above, by the chronogram, ghdrji 
( ^)^ ) which gives the date as 1214 A. Y., i.e., 1845 A.C. 

86 It appears that Rustam went to Goa by land route. 

87 It seems that the matter of returning a big ship with its rich merchan- 
dise captured in a sea - skirmish was a matter of great importance. So, 
the Viceroy of Goa made inquiries and consulted the home authorities. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 141 

We learn from the above summary that this kisseh, in praise , 
Historical ^^ Rustom Manock, contains accounts and 
lilvents treated references to the following events of historical 
in the Kisseh. importance :— 

1 . The Jaziyeh or poll-tax, imposed by Aurangzib, from the 

oppressive burden of which Rustam released his 
community as a body and also poor individuals of 
other communities. 

2. The Sack of Surat by Shivaji, from the distress of which 

Rustam Manock relieved his people. 

3. Rustam Manock' s appointment as a broker of the English 

factory at Surat and his accompanying a member of 
the factory to the Court of Aurangzib to pray for 

4. Rustom Manock's Visit to Dandeh Rajpuri, on the coast 

about 40 miles from Bombay, which was long a seat 
of war between Shivaji and Aurangzib, a war in which 
the English were, at times, associated. His visit of 
Damaun and Naosari. 

5. Rustam Manock's visit of Goa to get released a ship of 

OsmanChalibi, which was captured by the Portuguese. 
I will speak at some length about these events, but, before 
doing so, I will give an account of the life of Rustam Manock, as 
presented by the Kisseh and as gathered from other sources. 


(B) An Account of the Life of Rustom Manock. 

Rustom Manock was born at Surat in 1635 A.C.^® He was the 

Birth and founder of the well-known Bombay family, known 

Family. among Parsees as the Seth Khandan or Seth 

88 I calculate this date of birth from the date of his death given by 
Bomanji B. Patel (Parsee Prakash ( 1878) Vol. I, p. 23). He says that he died 
on roz 17, mah 10, year 1090 A. Y., i.e., 30th July 1721, at the age of 86. Jalbhoy 
Ardeshir Seth, in his Genealogy of the Seth family (p. 9) makes the same 
statement. So if he died in 1721 A. C. at the age of 86, we get the year of his 
birth as (1721 — 86=) 1635. Ratanji Framji Wacha in his Mumbai no bahar 
(y'oiltJJil oii^i^ p. 427), published in 1874, gives the year of his death as 1088 
A.Y., i.e., 1719 A. C. at the age of 83 and that of his birth as 1002 A. Y., i.e., 
1633. But I accept the date given by Rustam's descendant, Mr. Jalbhoy. 


142 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

family, a family some of whose members have founded several 
charities. It appears that the family surname, " Seth," has come 
into use since Rustom Manock's time. He is all along spoken • 
of in the Qisseh as oow/ Sett. The Qisseh speaks of him as the 
Luminary or Sun of the assemblies (saraj-i-majalis ^wJ Is-* ^ I -«» 
c. 57) of the Zoroastrians. What seems to have been meant is 
that he was their leader and presided at their communal meetings. 

The word Sett ( oaau ) is Gujarati Sheth (^U), Marathi 
Signification Sheth (^). It has passed into Tamil as Seth 
of the word Seth. and into Telugu as Setti or Satti. It is an 
Indo-Iranian word. It is Avestaic sraeshta, Sanskrit shresta 
(^)^^ and comes from a root, Avesta Sri, to be handsome 
(Sans. -5(1 beauty, prosperity). The Avestaic word sraeshta 
is the superlative degree of sri and literally means " the 
most beautiful." According to Wilson, in India, the word Seth 
has come to mean " a merchant, a banker, a trader, a chief 
merchant : often used in connection with the name as a respectful 
designation, as Jagat-seth. In some places, the Seth or Sethi is 
the head of the mercantile or trading body, exercising authority 
over them in matters of caste and business, and as their represen- 
tative, with the government."^ It seems that as a leader, not only 
of his own community, but of the Surat community in general, 
Rustam Manock came to be known as " Seth." ^^ 

The qisseh says, that he came down from a priestly stock 

(nazadash bud as tokhmeh Mobadan c. 54). 

His Family Many priestly families of Naosari look to one 

^tock. Nairyosang Dhaval as their progenitor. This 

Nairyosang Dhaval lived in about the 12th century^ 

89 Wilson's Oriental Language Glossary of Terms, p. 475. 90 ibid. 
*^ Mr. Sorabji Muncherji Desai, in his " ^,[\^^\ <l^5}i" p. 39, thus speaks 
on this sub ject ; "^IS >il(al*95 »<i€l<ll\|'ll oilHl wH^Ut? inail«^ >i^lot ^dt, H^i Hl^^nul 

^iH X\{im «*««, d>i«r >il3|€t 5»M>iail$l>4i a^^ a>l'2i<» VlSlllWll5J<l^i «l3iq»l <lH«=ll'(l 

92 Vide my Gujarati paper, entitled d^l?^**! H<l«^l ^d (the Date of 
Neryosang Dhaval) in my Iranian Essays ( tJ^ldT qlH^ii ) part III, 
pp. 197-203). The late Dr. W. E. West, also gives the same date (Ibid pp. 

Riistam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 143 

A.C., According to the genealogy given in Jalbhoy Seth's book,^ 
his descent from Nairyosang Dhaval runs down as follows : 
Neryosang (son of Dhaval) — Mobad — Khushmasta — Khujasta 
— Bahmanyar — Khorshed — Bahmanyar — Horn — Faridun — Chanda 
— Rustam — Kamdin — Faridun — Chandana — Jamshed — Manock ^^ 
— Rustam (Rustam Manock).®* 

Though he and some of his near forefathers belonged to Surat, 
Original an- ^^^ ancestors belonged to Naosari. For this 
cestral Home at reason, he and his family took a great interest 
Naosari. ^^ ^^^ welfare of the priests of Naosari.®^ 

His great grand-father Chandana®^ was the first who went 
from Naosari to reside at Surat. ^' He was in very poor circum- 
stances when he went to live at Surat. Chandana and his son 
continued to be poor, but the family began to see better times from 
the time of Manock, the father of Rustam.®^ The family had a 
number of relatives in Naosari, and we will see, later on, that Rustam 
Manock, when he went to Naosari stayed there, at the house of a 
relative Nusserwanji, of whom, a copy of the Gujarati transliteration 

93 Manock was the adopted son of Jamshed. 

94 Vide Mr. Jalbhoy Seth's Genealogy p. 2 and the geneological tree 
in the pocket of the book ; Vide Mr. Rustamji Jamaspji Dastur's aMi«il^Hl«t 
llCHitT »t3i^^l«< «H'^llci$il (1899) p. 189. Vide its rendering into English 
entitled " The Genealogy of the Naosari Priests " with Sir G. Birdwood's 
Introduction p. 189. 

95 His descendants, upto now, have been acknowledged as the Seth, t.e.t 
the leaders or the heads of the priestly class of Naosari. Mr. Kavasji Jalbhoyi 
Seth, the present male heir of the Charities Trust foimded by his ancestor 
Manockji Nowroji, when he went to Naosari for the first time, was welcomed 
by the Naosari priests with an address as their leader. Therein, they said •* 
"Not only the Naosari priests, but priests of other towns also looked to 
Rustam Manock's direct male heirs as leaders." For example, we find that 
the Godawra Mobads, i.e., the Mobads of the suburbs, &c., of Surat, met 
on 25th May 1723, at Rustam 's family house at Surat, to settle their eccle- 
siastical disputes, and his son Framjee attested the document of settlement 
(Parsee Prakash I, p. 850). Again, later on, the Sanjana priests appealed 
to his direct male heir, Mr. Manockji Nowrojee Seth, in the matter of the 
sacred fire which they removed from Naosari. The records of the Parsi 
Panchayat contain many references to the Seth Khandan family having 
been looked at, as the leaders of the Mobads of Naosari. 

96 Fi(fe above for the pedigree. 97 i^-tHitf^i exi^l^ (Mumbai no Bahar) 
by Mr. Ruttonjee Framjee Wacha, p. 427. 98 ibid. 

144 < RuMam Mamck and the Persian Qisseh 

%ii^ and translation speaks as Nusserwanji Meherji. As he was thus 
connected with the Naosari priests, we find Rust am Manock signing 
first, as a witness, an important communal document, dated 6th 
June 1685, relating to the Naosari Mobads and theSanjanaMobads.^^ 
From his time forward, the principal heir of the Seth family, in 
direct descent from Rust am Manock, is acknowledged by the Parsee 
priests of Naosari as their head. It appears from the genealogical 
tables of the Naosari priests, that the family originally belonged to 
the Pavri stock of families. ^^^ Rustam Manock's great great 
grandfather Faridun Kamdin Rustam was Pavdi by surname. ^^^ 
He became Navar, i.e., passed through the ceremony of initia- 
tion into the class of priesthood, on roz 18, mah 
ho^d! ^'*'''*'^' 2' Samvad 1731,^.e., 1675 A.C.i^i He wasagedforty 
at the time. At present, this seems to be a very 
grown up age for entry into Navarhood.^^^ But, there have been 
occasionally cases of initiation into Navarhood at a grown up age. 
In Samvant 1741 {i.e., 1685 A.C.), the Naosari Bhagarsath 
priests and the Sanjana priests passed a mutually 
Rustom Ma- signed document in the matter of their sacerdotal 
o/'a comm^l ^^^^^^ ^^^ privileges ^^\ Rustam Manock, signed 
document. the document, as a witness, at the top, being the 

leader of the Surat Parsees. The document is 

99 Parsi Prakash I, p. 19. Vide for this document, the Ms. note-book of 
Jamaspji Sorabji Dastur, in the Naosari Meherji Rana Library, p. 31. 

100 Vide a^^iR'ti'l ^l«lt'l (!H»i^^l«< =i'<iiq(Hl (The Genealogy of the 
Bhagarsath priests by Ervad Rustom Jamaspji Dastur Meherji Rana), p. 188. 
Vide the English Edition by Austa Naoroz Ervad M. Parvez, with Sir George 
Birdwood's Introduction (1899) pp. 188-189. 

101 Vide Ervad Mahiar N. Kutar's Fahresht of Navars, published by the 
K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, Vol. I p. 36. The entry runs as follows : — 

vt'HXXi: Sii. )[^<[<i ^fiw. Two sons of Rustam Manock — Framji and Nowroji — 
were not initiated, but Bahman, the 2nd son, was initiated in Samvat 1757 
(1701 A.C.) (Fic^e the Faresht op. cit. p. 77). The entry runs thus. 

S<1. ^\m 3*1. ^HMi %.'4it'ii aM?.UU=|M J^. ^^ct>i ><i;iJj ^i^^i. Bahmanji was 
adopted by his uncle Behramji. 

102 Vide for this ceremony of initiation, known as Navar, my " Religious 
Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees " pp. 197-204. 

103 Dastur Jamaspji Sorabji's Ms. Notes m the Naosari Meherji Rana 
Library, Vol. I, p. 31. Vide Parsee Prakash I, pp. 18-19. 

Riistam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 145 

dated: '' -^IHcl ivsvi'll H^>*1 ^14 5^n'<r/^^ri ^oHV^lw' €M^^^ Hl^l 
^IHI (T^ {[<■ It seems that, even after his death, his house at 
Surat was held to be, as it were, a rendezvouz for parties who 
fought for their rights, to meet and settle disputes. We find, as said 
above, that the Godavra priests and laymen of villages round Surat 
met in his house on 25th May 1723 to settle their differences. The 
document of settlement was witnessed by his son Framjee ^^*. 

The Qisseh says, that Rustam Manock built several wells for 
The Qisseh's Public use. When I had the pleasure of visiting 
Reference to Hajira, a sea health-resort near Surat in 1909 ^^^ 
Rus^m Manock j ^^^^ ^j^^^.^ ^ ^^^ bearing the following 
building ivells ..... ° ^ 

for public use, inscription in Persian, showing that the well was 

c- 279. built by Rustam Manock : 

!♦.. ^_Au J^ ^S^ /^y^ 4>4>^ 

Translation. — (1) ^^^ Manockji Parsee, dug this ^^^ and well 
in the way of God ^^®. Whoever drinks the water of this place, the 
righteous reward (sawab) of that person ^^^ may be made receivable 
(ja'iz) to this humble self [i.t., me). The date of the Yazdajardi 
year IO..110. 

The Gujarati inscription, which is clear, runs thus : 
H\M. 5Hl •ut:^?! 3H*Ul3^^(1H25 "Hl^i^?^ ^^Hl ^i Hl^l ^f=lct IvsMH <! 
^l^l^l^ ^? 3. 

Translation. — Andhiaroo ^^^ Rustamji Manockji got this well 
built out of charity. Sam vat 1755, Shravan Sud 3. 

10* Parsee Prakash I, p. 850, col. 1. 

^"^ After writing the above I saw the well again in November 1928. 

^^^ The first words are not clearly legible on the stone, but they may be 
^a. JUu; ^ i,e., "I Rustomji." ^"'Doubtful. 

108 Fi sabilillah " in the way of God, for the love of God, for sacred 
uses " (Steingass). 

109 The word may be junat, i.e., gatherer, plucker. 

"" The last two figures are not legible. But, in the Hindu date in 
Gujarati, the year is clear as 1755 Shrawan Sud. 3. This gives the correspond- 
ing Parsee year as 1068 and the Christian year as 1699. Vide Jalbhoy Seth's 
book of Genealogy, p. 9. m i.e., one belonging to the priestly claas. 

146 Riistam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


As said by Mr. EdaljiBurjorjiPatel, in his "History of Surat", 

after the death of AurangzebinlTOY^^^ some of the 

Rustompura Parsis of Naosari, were tired of the depredations 

in Surat Jound- ^^ ^^^ Mahrattas in their town and of the rule of 

ed by Rustam 

Manock. some of the officers ; so, a number of them, about 

one to two thousand, left Naosari with their 
families and went to live at Surat. It seems that it was at 
this time, that Rustom Manock founded a quarter for them to 
live in and it was named Rustampura after him. A Tower of 
Silence was built at Surat for these fugitive Parsees. They asked 
for land for a Tower from Nawab Momin Khan in 1715 or 1716. 
They met in 1722, to confer on this subject and began collect- 
ing subscription in 1723 ^^^. 

The Qisseh refers to a building with a garden, given by Rustam 

Manock, for the charitable use of Zoroastrians 

His Building (cc. 272-74). This building with a garden seems 

!?/->• ^ *^ to be that which is now known as'Panchat ni wadi 
the Qisseh, as 

given in charity. { H'^iiciril c{{£[ ) ix., the garden-house of the 

Panchayet ^^^, i.e. of the Zoroastrian public ^^^. 

It appears that Rustam had made such a name, that his name 

was commemorated in the prayer of Dhup Nirang/^* 

Rustam Ma- recited after his times. There is an old manu- 

memorMZZ'e ^^^^P* ^^ *^^ Khordeh Avesta, wi-itten in Persian 

Dhup Nirang. character, in 1115 Yazdazardi (in Samvat 1802 

1746 A.C.) i.e., about 183 years ago by Ervad 

113 B. B. Patel's Parsee Prakash, Vol. I, p. 25. 

11* For the word " Panchayet," vide my " History of the Parsee Pancha- 
yet of Bombay " Chap. III. Vide my article, in Edwardes' Gazetteer of 
Bombay, Vol. Ill, pp. 323-28. 

11^ After writing this paper, I had the pleasure of visiting this place in 
November 1928. Mr. Manockji Nowroji Seth, a grandson of Rustom Manock, 
had, when the family transferred itself to Bombay, built a similar wadi or 
garden in Bombay, which was long known as Panchayet ni wadi. Latterly, 
it came to be known as Manockji Seth's Wadi. The old name " Panchayet 
ni wadi " has left its mark in the name of the lane, which first led to it. The 
lane is still called Panchayet Lane ( Vide Mr. S. T. Sheppard's " Bombay 
Place-names," p. 119). 

11^ Vide my " Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees ", pp. 
442-43 for this ceremony. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 147 

Jamshed Dastur Jamasp bin Asa.^^^ In this old Ms. of the 
Khordeh Avesta, we find, among the names, after that 
• of Neryosang Dhaval, the undermentioned three names preceding 
those of some Behedins : Dastur Meherji Ervad Vacha, Ervad 
Rustam Osta Manock, Osta Naoroz Ervad Rustam. 

The first of these three names is that of the well-known Dastur 
Meherji Rana of Naosari. The second is that of Rustom Manock, 
and the third that of his son Naoroji who had gone to Europe.^^ 
(Folio 79a, 11. 2-3). 

A Dutch record or Register-book refers to Rustam Manock. 

I am indebted for this information to Rev. Father 

A Dutch Heras, Professor of History in the St. Xavier's 

Record of 1681. College of Bombay. Finding a Parsee name in 

a Dutch record, he kindly drew my attention to 
it. He sent me at first his following translation of an extract 
from the book : " The Dutch Diary of Batavia mentions several 
letters received from India and, among them, a translation of a 
Benjaen letter written by Rustom jee Zeraab, representative of the 
three European nations doing business in Suratta." (Dagh Register 
1681, p. 626). 

^^' Bom 1732, died 1786. He was a learned priest of Naosari. (Parsee 
Prakash I, p. 68). He is referred to by Anquetil Du Perron (1771 A.C.) in his 
Zend Avesta, Tome I, Partie I, p. 428. Anquetil, having heard of him as a 
great Dastur, made it a point to see him at Naosari on his way from the 
Island of Elephanta to Surat. Vide my " Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur 
Darab ", p. 52. 

^^* The above Ms. bears the date roz Meher mah Tir, year 1115 
Yazdazardi. It gives the corresponding other years as 1159 Hijra, 
1153 Fasli, 1802 Sam vat, 1667 Salivan. Vide the colophon at the end, 
a few pages after the 128th folio. The Ms. belongs to Mobad Kavasji Pestanji 
Karkaria. The scribe gives his name as Mobad Jamshed bin Dastur Jamasp bin 
Asaji bin Fardunji Bhagarieh. It was written in Naosari for Mobad Naoruz 
bin Ratanji bm Manockji Dorabji. I beg to thank Mr. Rustamji Menvanji 
Karkaria for kindly procuring it for me for perusal. There is one pecuharity 
in the Dhup Nirang, given in this Ms. The khshnuman of Dhup Nirang as 
now recited is that of Sarosh, but here the scribe says : It may be any 

khshnuman ( Jwib ^^XmkL. /f^l^ Then,ior the khshnuman, recited 

at the end of the Nirang, the khshnuman mentioned is that of Hormuzd 

Khudai (foUo 81 b, 1. 3.) ^^-^f\J^jf b; I Lu'V-.-*^^ u5* ' '^ "^ >*; Jt • 

148 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

On making further inquiries from Father Heras in the matter 
of the extract, he thus wrote in his letter of 1st September 1927 
about the title of the book : " The diary, mentioning the said 
Parsi, records the events of 1681. The title of the book is as 
follows : ' Dagh-Kegister gehouden int Casteel Batavia vaut 
passereude daer ter plaetse als over geheel Nederlandts-India 
Anno 1681 van Dr. F. de Haan Batavia— 's Hague 1919." " That 
reads in English : ' Diary written in the Batavia Castle by 
travellers to the places and all over Dutch Indies in the year 
1681 ; (edited) by Dr. F. de Haan.' The Note in Dutch itself 
runs thus : 

" mitsgaders noch een translaat Benjaanse missive, 

door den volmagt der drie Europiaanse natien in Suratta nego- 
tierende genaemt Rustemsie Zeraab."^^^ 

Translation. — A translation of a Benjian letter WTitten by 
Rustemsie Zeraab, representative of the three European nations 
doing business in Surat. 

Now, who is this Benjaen and what is the name Rustumsie 
Zeraab. I am indebted to Mr. Muncherji Pestanji Khareghat for 
kindly pm+ing me in the right track by explaining the word and 
identifying the name. The word Benjaen is " Banian " which 
meant " Gujarati " and the word zeraab, after Rustamjee, is 
shroff. Now, Rustam as a broker was a . shroff also. Jalbhoy 
Seth speaks of him as -^i^i^ i.e., shroff, and we know from 
subsequent events, that Rustam Manock had lent a large sum 
of money to the English factory. I beg to thank Father Heras 
for kindly drawing my attention to this book. 

The new thing that we learn from this Dutch Register is that 
Rustam Manock was a broker, not of one or two but three nations. 
Though not explicitly mentioned, we infer, that the third nation, 
besides the two, — the Portuguese and the English — was the Dutch. 
From the date of the record, it appears then, that Rustam 
Manock was appointed a broker of the Dutch some time before 

119 Dagh Registar (1681), p. 626. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh. 149 

There are several writers who have referred to Rustam Manock 

and his sons. Two of them, Sir John Gayer, ^^o 

► Some Euro- the Agent of the Old Company, and Sir Nicholas 

pean writers, Waite, are his contemporaries, The first was 

referring ^^^ t .'i . -r% n • i p i i • . 

Rustam Man- hostile to Kiistam, well mgh from the beginnmg, 

nock or his sons, because Sir N. Waite of the New Company had 
chosen him as his broker. Sir N. Waite, who, at 
first, was friendly, latterly became hostile and dismissed Rustam 
from his service, a step which he sought to justify. 

We read the following, in a despatch of 24th April 1706, by 

Sir John Gayer and his Council of Surat, as 

given by Yule in his Diary of William Hedges : 

Gayer and \Z " '^^^' ^^^ Union affairs be at such a full stop, 

Council of Surat yet by means of Rustums bribery and one of his 

on Rustam Ma- assistants there hath been more goods stript 

off, of late for account of private Shipping, who 
undoubtedly must bear the charge one way or 
other, but by such bribery he keeps all the officers fast to his 
Interest, and perhaps is master of so much vanity as to think that 
he shall at last by such means bring the Company to truckle to him; 
he sticks at no cost, and whatsoever the Governor bids him do 
he ffrankly doth it." ^^^ " One of his assistants " referred to 
here, seems to be his naib or deputy, Nusserwanji, referred to in 
the Qisseh. We gather the following facts about Rustam from this 
extract : 

1. Rustam was an influential man at this time (about. 
A.C. 1706) and did business also with private shippers. 

^20 In a Gujarati Ms. of the Pahlavi Jamaspi, written on 21st January 
1840, in the list of events added to the prescribed events, we find Sir John 
Gayer, referred to as coming to Surat in Sam vat 1750 (A.C. 1694), We read 
the following about his arrival ; '^1*^.-1 "t^^o ^i"^ $i« m ><ivit ^ q ^!«i"t oi^ 
^ilg? q<Hin«(l a^i^5i| il St ^M ' (p. 301 of the Ms.) i.e., "In Samvat 1750, on 
roz 5 mah 6, Shajan G r Shinor came from London." The ShajanGer Shinor, 
mentioned here, is a corruption of Sir John Gayer. The word Shinor is cor- 
rupted from Signor (Seignior, Fr. Seigneur, Portug. Senhor, Lat. Senior) i.e. 
Sir. Vide my translation of the Pahlavi Jamaspi, Introduction, p. XLII. 

^21 The Diary of William Hedges, Esq., afterwards Sir William 
Hedges, (1681-87) illustrated by copious extracts from unpublished records 
by Col. Henry Yule, Vol. Ill (1889), p. CV., n3. 

150 ^ Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

2. He had some influence also with, the Governor (Nawab) 

of Surat. 

3. Gayer, who had differences with him, attributes that 

influence to bribery. 

We read the following in the Diary of William Hedges^^^ • — 
' Sir N. Waite writes in a letter to the 
(6) Nicholas Directors (of the English ' Company), dated 

tarn Manock. 'Bombay Castle, 26th November 1707', in his 

usual confused and almost unintelligible 
style : "I have not received copie of your consultation Books 
from Messrs. Probey & Bonnell, as told you by the Albemarle, 
expected to enable my fully examining their last Books of two years 
jumbled together, am apt to believe may not now come upon the 
Publick news wrote from the other Coast that certain alterations that 
will be made on this side, the Suratt gentlemen writes are 
confirm'd by the great President's directions, Eustumjee being 
Broker to all their private ships, thereby setting up an opposite 
Interest to the United Trade, the prejudice of which the Managers 
may read in our Consultations was wrote the Governor and Councill 
of Madrass, and this year they appointed the Old Company's Broker 
Venwallidass with Rustomjee to be their Brokers." We learn the 
following facts about Eustam Manock from this letter, by Sir N. 
Waite, of 26th November 1707 :— 

1. By this time, his relations with Sir N. Waite were 


2. Besides being broker to the European Companies, he was 

also the broker of the owners of private ships and this 
connection was taken by Sir N. Waite to be against 
the interests of the English Company. 

3. He was appointed broker by the New United Company 


J. H. Grose thus wrote about Rustam Manock's son Nowrojee 

(c) J H Grose " Nowrojee Rustumjee, who was here in England, 

(1750) on Rustam and whose family was in the greatest consideration 

Manock's son among those people, deduced his descent from those 
Nowroji. i-PT^.i 1 1 11 

kings 01 Persia, whose dynasty was destroyed by 

1" Ibid III, p. CV. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 151 

the Mahometan invasion, when the last prince of it, Izdigerdes,^^^ a 

descendant from Cosroes, the son of Hormisdas,^24 ^g^g dethroned 

and slain about the year 650. But whether his pretensions were 

just or not, or whether the rank of those fugitives was in general 

as high as their posterity assert it was, when they arrived at the 

country where Surat stands, they were hospitably received by the 

Gent 00 inhabitants, who compassioned their distress and were 

perhaps themselves alarmed with reason, as it proved afterwards 

at the progress of the Mahometans, which had thus fallen, like 

a storm, on a country not very distant from them." 124a. 

Rustom Manock is referred to by Anquetil Du Perron, more 

, -, , „ ^ than once. He, on the authority of Dastur Darab 
{a) Anquetil Du ^ - • e -r^ 

Perron (1761) of Surat, refers to the visit of Rustam Manock s 

on Rustam Ma- gon Nowroji to England. He speaks of that visit 

having occurred about 40 or 50^^^ years before 

him. When there, Nowroji was shown an old Ms. of the Zend 

Yazashna Sade in the Bodleian Library, but he could not read it 

(le Manuscrit Zend que Norouzdji, fils de Roustoum Manek, vit il y 

a quarante a cinquante ans en Angleterre, et qu'il ne put lire, a ce 

que m'a dit le Destour Darab)^^^. Nowroji was not initiated as a 

priest. He is spoken of as o5^a. So not being taught the Avesta 

alphabet, we can understand, why he could not read it. Had he 

been initiated like his fattter Rustam he could have read the Ms^^?^ 

^^^ Yazdagard. ^^* Khosro , the son of Hormazd. 

^2*a J. H. Grose's Voyage to the East Indies, ed. of 1772, p. 124. The 
1st ed. was published in 1766. 

^25 The year of Nowroji's visit of England was 1724 A.C. 

^^^ Zend Avesta, Tomel, Partie2, Notices, &c., p. IX. Fw^e my An- 
til Du Perron and Dastur Dorab, p. 7. (Parsi Prakash I, p. 29). 

^^■^ According to Anquetil, there were two copies of the Yazashna at 
Oxford. One was showed to Rustam Manock's son Nowroji, as said above. 
The other was carried to England by Mr. Frazer, who had purchased it, together 
with a Rivayat for Rs. 500 from Manockji Nowroji Seth, the grand-son of 
Rustam Manock. (Le second exemplaire de I'lzeschne conserve a Oxford, d 6t6 
ecrit a Surate, 1' an 1105 d'lezdedjerd, de J.C. 1735 et apporte en Angleterre 
par M. Frazer, qui, au rapport de Darab, I' avoit achete avee un Ravayet, 
cinq cent Roupies (douze cent livres) de Manekdjiset, petit-fils de Roustoum ; 
lequel (Maneckdjiset) le tenoit du Destour Bikh " (Zend-avesta, Tome I, 
Partie 11, p. IX). This Manockji Seth lived from 1688 to 1748 (Vide 
Parsee Prakash I; p. 36). Vide my Anquetil and Dastur Darab, p. 7. Vide 
Ibid for Dastur Bikh. Genealogical Table, p. 276. 

152 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Anquetil refers also to Rustam's garden of flowers at Surat '^^a. 

The Qussehlias a special section for Ms family, headed j J^ ,) )d 

J^)%.e., said (in the matter) of Rustam's 

^* *^* heirs. It says that Rustam had three sons, 

Framarz, Bahman and Naoruz. The author adds that Nowroji was 
his pupil (havisht). Rustam's wife was named Ratan-banoo 
(Ratanbai). He says : " God has given him a pious wife and 
that beautiful lady is named Ratan-banu" (c. 309). 

Rustam died at the ripe old age of 86 on 30th July 1721.128 
The Bombay Seth Khandan family came into prominence, 
since the foundation of a Trust of Religious charities by Manokji 
Nowroji 129^ the grandson of Rustam Manock, and the son of Rus- 
tam Manock's third son Nowrojee, who is mentioned in the Qisseh 
by the author as his pupil, and who had gone to England to seek 
redress at the hands of the Directors of the East India Company. 
I have given above (p. 1) the genealogy of the line coming down to 
Mr. Kavasji Seth, the present Mutwali ( J yl^ ), %.i^,^ the 
administrator of the Trust and Charities, the 8th in direct descent 
from Rustam Manock. 

"8a lUd, p. 311 

"8 Parsee Prakash I p. 23. 

129 ijijjjg Manockjee Nowrojee Seth seems to have been a patron of Iranian 
literature. He got Mss. written by learned priests, (a) One of such Mss. has 
found its way in the Bodleian Library. I had the pleasure of seeing it, on 
23rd August 1889, during my visit of the Bodleian in the company of the late 
Rev. Dr. Mills. It is a Ms. of the Vendidad Sadeh, written by Mobad Bhika 
bin Rustam in 1105 A.Y. (1736) A.C. for Manockjee Seth. The Colophon 

says : vJ>»a^ ^j ^**' ^ \^t^ ^ ^. '&^ '^r^^' ^"^ ^^^^'^^i^ ^ ^ y^ j^ ^»-. ■^. w ar^ 

Vide Sachau and Ethe's " Catalogue of Persian Manuscripts in the Bodleian 
Library" (1889). Vide its section D. Zoroastrian Literature (column 1106 
Ms. 1936). Vide my Dastur Bahman Kaikobad and the Kisseh-i-Sanjan, 
Appendix 2, p. 80. Another Ms. written by the same Dastur for Manockjee 
Seth has made its way in the India Office Library. It is a Ms. of the Yasna 
{JUd) The same Dastur requested Manockji Seth to intervene in the matter 
of his dispute with the Naosari Priests (Ibid). Vide my Anquetil Du Perron 
and Dastur Darab, pp. 7 and 79. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh. , 153 

The Visit of The visit of Nowroji to England is thus referred 
In'^J/Rnslm ^^ ^^ ^n old Ms. record ^^o of the Parsee 
Manock, to Panchayet of Bombay : '* ''i'^l^l^n M'^iia H^ «>l'^l- 

ferr!Jl"ian ^^^^^ ^^'^^ ^^^^^ 't^^' Rl^Kl ^IH^ ^-iK^m ^<1l 
old Record of ^, rti^il '■-a:>lcl. ''l\i> nH^lO ^^lclM»5 ^ ^h'WKI 

<Jg Parsee ^^i^hcI r/^T 3Hi^:yii y> In this note, Naoroji is 
Panchayet. . „ «« , , i , ^-r 

spoken oi as one who had gone to the Home 

(velayet) of the English. 

The Qisseh speaks of several events of his Hfe which have 

Some Impor- historical importance. I will not speak of them 

tant Events ]^qj.q ^t any length, because I have to speak of 

ofRustam's ^, . . ,. t^.t -ii 

Life, with them m separate sections. But I give below 

Dates. a list with dates of all the Events of his life 

including those referred to in his Qisseh: 

The first East India Company known as the London 

East India Company, founded A. C. 1600 

English Factory founded at Surat . . . . . . 1612 

Rustam Manock born 1635 

The first Sack of Surat by Shivaji, from the distress of 
which Rustam Manock relieved his people . . . . 1664 

Rustam Manock relieved the Parsees of Surat and some 
poor of other communities from the distress of Aurang- 
zeb's Jaziyeh. about . . . . . . . . . . 1672 

Rustam Manock went through the ceremony of Navar- 
hood (Samvant 1731) i^i at the age of 40 . . . . 1675 
iHl Date of the mention, in a Dutch book, of Rustam 
^B Manock's name as a broker of three Companies, one of 
li^P which seems to be the Dutch . . . . . . . . 1681 

Rustam Manock, signing first an important communal 
document as the head of the priestly commu- 
nity . . . . . . . . . . 6th June 1685 

The new English East India Company, of which Rustam 

Manock was appointed broker, founded . . . . 1698 

130. Ms. Bk. p. Vide my "History of the Parsi Panchayet" 

131. Yide the Firhest of the Navars at Naosari, which is now being pub- 
lished by the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, p. 36. 

154 Rustam Manock and the Persian QisseJi, ||j 

Date of the Inscription on a well at Hajira, near 
Surat, built for public use by Kustam Manock 
(Samvant 1755) 1699 

Sir Nicholas Waite arrived at Surat as the bead of the 
Factory of the New East India Company and appoint- 
ed Kustam Manock its broker . . 19tli January 1699^' 

Sir William Norris, the Ambassador, arrived at 
Maslipatam 25tb September 1699^ 

Kustam Manock' s Visit to the Court of Aurangzib 

with the EngHsh Ambassador 171 

Kustam Manock's Visit of Dandeh-i Kajpuri . . . . 170 J 
Kustam appointed " broker for the United Trade " . . 1704^^ 

Kustam Manock's visit of Goa to secure the release of 
Osman Chalibi's ship captured by the Portu- 
guese . . . . . . . . . . Date uncertail 

Kustam Manock removed from Brokership by the 

Nawab and imprisoned at the instance of Waite| About 1705 

Kustam Manock's death 30th July 1721 

Kustam Manock's youngest son Nowroji sailed per 
ship SaUsbury, for England, to seek redress from the 
United East India Company, and arrived in 
London . . . . . . . . April 1723 

The date of the 1st Document, viz. the letter from 17 
Directors of the East India Company to " the Presi- 
dent and Council of Bombay", directing thatFramji 
and Bomanji, the sons of Kustam Manock, may be at 
once released from confinement . . 19th August 1723 

Second Document, viz., the Award of four Arbitrators 
appointed by the E. I. Company in favour of the sons 
of Kustam Manock . . . . 18th January 1724 

Third Document — The Award noted by the Lord 
Mayor and Alderman February 1724 

Fourth Document — A letter to Nowroji' s two brothers 
in India, Framji and Bomanji, from Cha. Boonet, 

132 Brace's Annals of the Honorable East India Company Vol. Ill 
(1910), p. 335. 133 Hid, p. 344. 134 Ibid, p. 569. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 155 

in London, speaking of Nowroji's work in 

London 25th March 1725 

Nowrojidied on 13th April 1732135 

(C) The historical events, mentioned in the Qisseh. 

We will now examine the historical events referred to in the 
Qisseh-i Rustam Manock. The Persian poem Qisseh-i Rustam 
Manock, refers to the following historical events of the time of 
Aurangzeb : — I. The Jaziyeh or Poll tax, imposed by Aurangzeb. 
II. Shivaji's Sack of Surat. III. Rustam Manock 's appointment 
as Broker of the English Factory. IV. Rustam Manock's visit of 
the Mogul Court in the company of an English factor : (a) The 
visit itself. (6)The state of affairs after the visit and on the return 
of the Embassy of Sir William Norris. V. Rustam Manock's 
visit, during the return journey from the Mogul Court, of : — {a) 
Dandah-i Rajpuri, (6) Daman, and (c) Naosari. VI. Rustam 
Manock's visit of Goa to get Osman Chalibi's ship released from 
the hands of the Portuguese. 

I. The Jaziyeh imposed by Aurangzeb. 

The Qisseh says, that the Jaziyeh-tax imposed by Aurangzeb 
I was felt heavily by the people, both the Parsees and the non- 
I Parsees of Surat. The Parsees as a body applied to Rustam 
I Manock to relieve them from the tax [zulmaveh). Rustam complied 
with their request. Then, some poor people of other communities 
I also appealed to him individually for help and he paid the taxes 
' due by them. I will speak of this subject under two heads : — 

1. Aurangzeb. His belief, bigotry and other characteristics 

» which induced him to impose the tax. 

2. The tax itself. The date, and the rate of the imposition 
of the tax, etc. 

135 Jalbhoy Seth gives the year as 1733, {la >HM^H'0 i'^h^ichI. p. 31) 
but the Parsee Prakash I., p. 29, gives it correctly as 1732. The Parsee 
date, given by both, is roz 2 rmh 7, 1101 Yazdazardi. The Yazdazardi 
year 1101 corresponds to 1732 and not to 1733. 

156 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


Aurangzeb was born, on 24t]i October 1618, of Sbali Jehan's 
The Early ^^^^ Mumtaz Mahal, in the moving cam}) of 
life of Aurang- Jahangir, at Dahod, in the Panch Mahal, when his 
^^^' parents were marching with the camp of his 

grandfather. He was, out of the four sons of Shah Jahan, the third 
son, and was a Sunni Mahomedan by faith. He took an active part 
in the fratricidal war about the right of succession during the very 
life time of Shah Jahan. He gained over to his side his brother 
Murad, telling him, that he did not want, on the throne, Dara, who 
Mas a free-thinker and Suhja who was a Shiah ; but that he liked to 
see on the throne a true good Mahomedan of the Sunni belief, and 
that, if he .gained victory over his brothers, he would go on a 
pilgrimage to Mecca. Thus, with the help of his brother Murad, 
he defeated the other two brothers, and then, going to Agra, made 
his aged father Shah Jahan a prisoner. Though, at first, he 
pretended outwardly that he wanted Murad to be enthroned, in 
the end, he got himself enthroned, saying, that Murad was, at the 
very time of the enthronement, found to be drunk. He was pro- 
claimed king in 1658 and ruled till 1707. Shah Jahan died in 1666, 
continuing as his son's prisoner at Agra for 8 years. 

During Aurangzeb's reign, the Mahrathas had risen in power 
under Shivaji (1627-1683), known later on as " the Raja of the 
Mahrathas." At first, Shivaji pounced upon the territories of the 
Sultans of Bijapur and Golconda and then attacked the camp of 
Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb left Delhi in 1683 to go to fight with the 
Mahrathas and other powers, and though he died in 1707, he did 
not return to the capital again from fear, lest he may be imprisoned 
there by any one of his rebellious sons, just as he had imprisoned his 
father Shah Jahan there. With an army of about one lakh of men, 
he took Bijapore in 1686 and Golconda in 1687, in which year the 
Moghal power was at its zenith. He could not successfully suppress 
the power of the Mahrathas. He put Sambhaji to a cruel death 
and took his son Sahu a prisoner. All this further enraged the 
Marathas, who were skilled in hill warfare and who avoided pitched 
battles on the plains. Most of the Deccan fortresses on the hills of 

Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 157 

the Deccan were the work of the Mahrathas during these stormy 
times when they thought it advantageous to fight a guerilla warfare. 
* Aurangzeb had to retreat to Ahmednagar where he died in 1707 A.C. 
His last words are said to be : "I have committed many crimes, 
I know not with what punishment I may be visited. "^^ Though 
in the middle of his reign, he had raised the power of the Moghal 
empire to its zenith, at the time of his death, when the Rajputs and 
! Mahrathas were still strong, the decline had begun. 

Aurangzeb had, in his boyhood, received all the orthodox 

IHb education of his time. His religious training 

^Kb^is Religious ^^^ ^^^^ ^o puritanism, " which", as said by 

i^^e. Lane-Poole, " was at once his destruction and his 

ruin".^^^ He received no broad liberal education. 

His own sketch of what a prince's education must be, is very 

interesting, and had he been given that education, perhaps, his 

power,and after him, that of his heirs would have continued long.' ' 

Even when he was,as it were, a boy-governor in the Deccan at the 

age of 17, he was their king, more of the future world than of the 

present one, and was taking a serious view of life, instead of a 

self -enjoying life of a prince. In 1643, when he was aged 24 he 

is said to have retired for some time as a, fakir or monk into the 

jungles of the Western Ghauts. Even during his conquests of the 

Mahomedan Powers of the Deccan, he appeared, as said by Dr. 

Friar, " under colour of a Fakier".^^^ In the matter of this fakir ship\ 

Lane Poole compares him to Emperor Charles V of Europe. But 

we find this difference : Charles became, as it were, a Christian 

fakir in his old age when he was much baffled and disappointed, but 

Aurangzeb became a Mahomedan fakir in the full bloom of youth 

and in the midst of aU the attractions of a pleasant life open to 

princes. It is said that when during the appearance of a comet for 

I four weeks in 1665, he, out of some thoughts of religious penance, 

I '* only drank a little water and ate a small quantity of millet 

j bread "1^9 his father Shah Jahhan rebuked him for all this 


^3« Sinclair's History of India, Chap. VI, Ed. of 1889, p. 80. 

^^' Stanley Lane-Poole's Aurangzib, p. 27. 

138 Fryer's New Account of East India and Persia (1698) p. 166, Letter 

Chap. IV. 

^^^ Stanley Lane-Poole's Aurangzib, p. 65. 

158 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


austerity, but to no purpose. His brother, Dara Shikoli, who 
had gone to the other extreme and was taken to be an agnostic 
or an atheist, was led by Aurangzeb's austerities to speak' 
of him as a " saint". ^^^* 

Lane-Poole thus explains his austerities of his boyhood and 
his subsequent successes as an Emperor : " The truth seems to 
be that his temporary retirement from the world was the youthful 
impulse of a morbid nature excited by religious enthusiasm. 
The novelty of the experiment soon faded away. The fakir 
grew heartily tired of his retreat ; and the young Prince 
returned to carry out his notions of asceticism in a sphere where 
they were more creditable to his self-denial and more operative 

upon the great world in which he was born to work His 

ascetic mind was fitted to influence the course of an empire. "^^^ 
Lane-Poole, who compares his life to that of Cromwell in Eng- 
land, thus speaks of his puritanic life : " Aurangzeb was, first 
and last, a stern Puritan. Nothing in life — neither throne nor 
love nor ease, weighed for an instance in his mind against his fealty 
to the principles of Islam. For religion he persecuted the Hindus 
and destroyed their temples, while he damaged his exchequer by 
abolishing the time-honoured tax on the religious festivals and fairs 
of the unbelievers. For religion's sake he waged his unending 
wars in the Deccan, not so much to stretch wider the boundaries 
of his great empire as to bring the lands of the heretical Shi 'a within 
the dominion of orthodox Islam. To him the Deccan was Dar-al- 
Harb : he determined to make it Dar-al-Islam. Religion induced 
Aurangzib to abjure the pleasures of the senses as completely 
as if he had indeed become the fakir he had once desired to be. No 
animal food passed his lips, and his drink was water ; so that, as 
Tavernier says, he became 'thin and meagre, to which the great fasts 
which he keeps have contributed. During the whole of the duration 
of the comet, which appeared very large in India, where I then 
was, Aurangzib only drank a little water and ate a small quantity 
of millet bread ; this so much affected his health that he nearly 
died; for besides this he slept on the ground, with only a tiger's 
skin over him ; and since that time he has never had perfect health. 

^^«a iiid.^ p. 29. i*« Ibid. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 159 

Following the Prophet's precept that every Muslim should practise 
a trade, he devoted his leisure to making skull-caps, which were 
doubtless bought up by the courtiers of Delhi with the same 
enthusiasm as was shown by the ladies of Moscow for Count Tolstoi's 
boots. He not only knew the Koran by heart, but copied it twice 
over in his fine calligraphy, and sent the manuscripts, richly adorned, 
as gifts to Mecca and Medina. Except the pilgrimage, which he 
dared not risk, lest he should come back to find an occupied throne, 
he left nothing undone of the whole duty of the Muslim. Even the 
English merchants of Surat, who had their own reasons for disliking 
the Emperor, could only tell Ovington that Aurangzeb was a 
' zealous professor' of Islam, 'never neglecting the hours of devotion 
nor anything which in his sense may denominate him a sincere 
believer'." ^^^ 

. His bigotry and dislike of the Hindu religion led to an insurrec- 
tion by the Satnamis, a sect of Hindu devotees. 
His bigotry. They rebelled in thousands and their life of 
devotion led people to think that they were 
invulnerate and " swords, arrows and musket baUs had no effect 
on these men." ^^^ The spread of this belief about their power 
led others to join them and depressed Aurangzeb's army. It is 
said that, to counteract this influence, Aurangzeb resorted to holy 
charms from the Koran. He wrote them and attached them to 
the banners of his army. These charms serving as inspiring amulets 
encouraged his Mahomedans who in the end suppressed the 
revolt. ^^^ 

Aurangzeb had, as time advanced, become a religious bigot 
and the following, that we read of him, explains the event of the 
imposition of the Jaziyeh tax, which his great grandfather Akbar 
had abolished : " Had Aurangzeb followed the policy of Akbar 

he might have consolidated his empire and reigned 

as the undisputed monarch of the whole of India 

The dream of Aurangzeb's life, now that he was firmly planted on 

the throne, was the destruction of idolatry, and the establishment 

of Mahomedanism throughout the length and breadth of the land 

.... Aurangzeb then began his religious persecutions. He 

"^ Ibid, pp. 64-65. ^*^ Ibid. p. 136. "=* Ibid, pp. 136-37. 

160 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

degraded the Rajputs. All Hindus, employed under government, 
were compelled either to embrace the Muslim faith, or lose their 
appointments. Idols were overturned, pagodas destroyed, and 
mosques built with the materials. Even, in the holy city of Benares, 
the most sacred temples were levelled to the ground, mosques 
erected in their place, and the images used as steps for ' the faithful' 
to tread on. Hindus were not allowed to celebrate their festivals 
and Jaziya, a ta^c on infidels that had been abolished by Akbar, was 
revived. All the viceroys in the provinces had instructions to act 
in the same manner. No tax could possibly be more unpopular 
than this Jaziya, and the imposition of it led to the most fatal 
consequences to the empire."^^* 

He disliked wine, music and even poetry, {a) He stopped music, 

not only from his court, but also from his capital 

His Dislike of city. It is said, that, once, hundreds of musicians 

usic poe ry, ^^^ singers, watching the time of his ffoins to a 
chronicle-writing . . ? 

and Wine. mosque, carried a funeral procession with a 

number of biers raising cries of mourning. When 

Aurangzeb inquired what the matter was, they said to him that 

as he has prohibited music, they carried it to the burying ground 

for being buried. He cooly said that, they must take proper 

care, that it is buried deep so that it may not revive again. 

(h) His dislike of poets and poetry is surprizing. He said : 

'' Poets deal in falsehoods." ^*^ That was in reference to their 

indulging in poetic fancies, which looked like going beyond the 

truth. The poets of the Moghal Courts of his predecessors really 

went beyond proper limits in their exaggerated praises of their 

royal and noble patrons ; and so, his remarks may perhaps apply to 

such poets. 

(c) Again he stopped all chronicle- writing. We know that, Babar, 
Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jehan, all wrote, or got written, chronicles 
of the events of their reigns. But Aurangzeb discontinued this 
practice. All the historical accounts of his reign that have come 
down to us were written secretly by some persons without his 
knowledge or attcr his time. This also seems to have been the result 

"* David Sinclair's History of India (Edition of 1889), p. 77. 
^*^ Stanley Lane-Poole's Aurangzib, p. 58. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 161 

of his puritanic views, that, in the life-time of the king, the writers 
werelilelyto flatter their royal masters. i^® (d) His dislike for 
wine was equally strong. As Stanley-Lane Poole suggests for 
his predecessors, even Alcbar included, that ' ' they abandoned 
themselve to voluptuous ease, to Wein, Weib und Gesang," the 
lines attributed by some to Luther, were, as it were, true for 

Wer nicht liebt Wein Weib und Gesang 

Der bleibt ein Narr sein Labenlang. 
i.e., " He who does not like wine, wife and song, remains a fool for 
the whole of his life." Many Persian poets sang in that tone. ^*^ 
But they were not right in Aurangzeb's view. Some writers, 
mostly Christian, doubt the sincerity of his bigotry and puritanism, 
but Dryden is an exception. In his play, entitled Aurangzebe, he 
expresses admiration for him.^*^* 

His bigotry led him in 1659 to give up the calendar of 
. .,, the ancient Persians, introduced by Akbar and 

Bigotry and the observed by Jahangir and Shah Jahan. When 
Iranian Ma- Jiig son Muazzan once observed the Naoroz, he 
wrote a letter to him and reprimanded him. He 
wrote : "I came to know from the representation of a disinterested 
person that this year you observed the Nowroz festival in the 
manner of the (present) Persians, By God's grace, keep your faith 
firm. From whom have you adopted this heretical innovation ? 
.... Anyhow this is a festivity of the Majusis .... 
Henceforward you should not observe it and repeat such folly." ^^^ 

Reading the accounts of his life from various sources, it appears, 
Auranqzih's ^^ times, that Aurangzeb's life presented contra - 

Contrarities in rities. We admire, at times, the simplicity of his 
•'^' life, but are surprized on reading his letter to 

his son A'azar, that even at his old age, he was fond of good tasty 

^" Aurangzib by Stanley Lane-Poole (1908), p. 137. ^*«a Ibid, p. 69. 

''■" Vide ray paper " Wine among the Ancient Persians ", Vide my Asiatic 
Papers " Part III, pp. 231-46. ^^^a Constable's selected publications, vol. 
Ill (1892), p. 121. In his view of Aurangzeb's life, he is said to have follow- 
ed Bernier. In the words which he places in Aurangzeb's mouth. '• When 
Iconsider life, 'tis alia cheat" (Act IV) he, as it were sums up his puritanism. 

^^^ Ruka'at-i-Alamgiri or Letters of Aurangzebe, translated by Jamshed 
H. Bilimoria (1908) pp. 5-6, Letter II. 

]62 Rustam Manock and the Persian QisseJi 


food ( khicliadi and biryani, ibid., p. 12, Letter 10 ). Tliougli 
austere in life, he was greedy of money as appears from his 
letter (No. 60) to his above " Exalted son ," wherein he says : 
" To refuse the presents brought by the nobles before you is a loss 
to the royal treasury. Though this time I forgive you for goodness' 
sake you should not do so in future." ^*^ We know that Manucci 
is unusually strict in his account of Aurangzib ; but, even account- 
ing for his prejudiced exaggeration, we see, from his account, a 
number of contrarities which would not reflect credit on the life of 
an ascetic. 

2. The Jaziyeh. the date and the eate of the 


We learn from the Qisseh, that theParsees of Surat complained 

What is Ja- bitterly about the hardships caused by the 

ziyeh ? The hu- imposition of the Jaziyeh and requested Eustam 
miliatinq way in ^.yr ^ , ^^ ,i e ,i. v i i • 

which it had to Manock to relieve them from these hardships. 

he paid. cc. 109- Eustam Manock relieved them. He went to the 

^^^- great Diwan and paid him a large sum (ganj 

chandi,c. 120) as a lump sum for alltheParsis. He further arranged 

to pay every year according to the number (mar ye ) of his people. 

On knowing this, the poor of other communities also asked his 

help. In this case, he did not take the responsibility of paying for a 

whole large community, but paid taxes for poor individuals. The 

Qisseh presents a Parsee view of the hardships of the tax. 

^h.^ Jaziyeh, pronounced in more than one way, is, according to 
Wilson^^o, " a capitation tax authorized by the Mohammadan law 
of conquest to be imposed on all subjects not of the Mohammadan 
religion." Prof. Sarkar^^^ says : " For permission to live in an 
Islamic State the unbeliever had to pay a tax called Jaziya which 
means 'substitute money,' i. e., the price of indulgence. It was first 
imposed by Muhammad, who bade his followers 'fight those who do 
not profess the true faith, till they pay Jaziya with the hand in humili- 
ty (QuranIX.29). The last two words of this command have been 
taken by the Muslimcommentators to mean, that the tax should be 

^*» Ruka'at-i-Alamgiri by J. H. Bilimoria (1908). p. 62. 

^^" Oriental Language Glossary of Terms, p. 236, col. 2. 

1" Sarkar's Aurangzeb, Vol. Ill, pp. 305-6. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 163 


levied in a manner humiliating to the tax-payers. As the scholars 
and divines of the time informed Aurangzeb, the books on Muslim 
•Canon Law lay down that the proper method of collecting the 
'iaziyeh is for the zimmi ^^^ to pay the tax personally ; if he sends the 
money by the hand of an agent it is to be refused ; the taxed person 
must come on foot and make payment standing, while the receiver 
should be seated and after placing his hand above that of the 
zimmi should take the money and cry out * o zimmi ! pay the com- 
mutation money." Such being the case, the very fact of saving 
the people, even those who could afford to pay a tax of that kind, 
from the compulsory appearance and humiliation before the tax- 
gatherer was a righteous act. All, the rich and the poor, were 
saved from the possible humility of personally going to the 
tax-gatherer and passing through all the rituality of payment. 

The early Mahomedan rulers of India levied this tax from all 
except the Brahmans, who, as a religious class, 
Aurangzeb re- were exempted from the beginning by the first 
*AkHr\ad "TJ- Mahomedan invader Muhammad Ghori (A.C. 
lishel ' "* ""' 1175-76). Firuz Shah (A. C. 1351 to 1388) 
taxed the Brahmans also. Akbar abolished the 
tax (1579 A. C). But Aurangzeb re-imposed it "in order, as the 
Court historian records, to ' spread Islam and put down the practice 
of infidelity ' ^^^. On learning of the imposition of this tax, the 
Hindus of Delhi mustered in force below the balcony of the 
royal palace on the bank of the Jumna and requested the 
removal of the tax, but their request was not accepted. Then, 
one Friday, when Aurangzeb was going to the Jamma Masjid, 
the Hindus mustered strong on the way and repeated the 
request. When they did not disperse, though asked to do so, 
Aurangzeb moved elephants in his front to clear his way. Some 
people were trampled to death in this attempt. Several writers 
refers to the severity of the jaziyeh. 

Kobert Orme says : "In order to palliate to his Mahomedan 

subjects, the crimes by which he had become 

{a) Robert Orme ^j^q^j, sovereign, he determined to enforce the 

aziye . conversion of the Hindoos throughout his 

152 ^^d " Zimmi, one tolerated by the Muhammadan law on paying 

an annual tax." (Steingass, p. 559). ^^^ Sarkar's Aurangzeb, UI, p. 308. 

164 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissth 

empire by the severest penalties, and even threatened the 

sword The reUgious vexation continued. Labour left 

the field and industry the loom ; until the decrease of the revenue^ 
drew representations from the governors of the provinces ; which 
induced Aurengzebe to substitute a capitation tax, as the balance 
of the account between the two religions. It was laid with heavy 
disproportion on the lower orders of Hindoos, which compose 
the multitude." 15*. 

As to the classes of the zimmi, Prof. Sarkar says : " The 
impost was not proportioned to a man's actual 
Its three class- iiicome, but the assessees were roughly divided 
es for assess- into three classes, according as their property 
^^'"'^' was estimated at not more than 200 dirhams 

(' the poor '), between 200 and ten thousand 
dirhams (the middle class) and above ten thousand (' the rich'). 
Money-changers, cloth-dealers, landowners, merchants and 
physicians were placed in the highest class, while artisans, such 
as tailors, dyers, cobblers and shoe-makers were counted as 'poor.' 
This last class paid only when their professional income left a margin 
above the cost of maintaining themselves and their famiHes."^^^ 
It is quite natural, that the question, whether sufficient margin 
was left to the poor to maintain themselves, being a difficult 
one to determine a hard tax -master would spread great hardship 
among the poor. The Parsees of Surat at the time were mostly 
weavers. It seems that, it was this class of the poor from among 
the non-Parsees that may have been released by Rustam 

Even Shivaji protested, politely but strongly, in a letter to 

(6) Shivaji's Aurangzeb, but to no efi^ect. The letter is long. 
Letter, protesting -, . •j.j.-x i-j-x- 

aqainst t h e ^^^y mterestmg from several points oi view. 

Jaziyeh. So, I give here some important parts of it from the 

^^* Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire, pp. 73-74. 

155 Sarkar's Aurangzeb III (1916), p. 306. 

156 It may be mentioned that, to release, from small petty debts, the 
poor who have been sent to prison for debts unavoidably incurred, was 
considered, up to the last century, an act of great righteousness. The first 
Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, Bart., is said to have done so in many case^ 

Rustam Manyck and the Persian Qisseh , 165- 

text as given by Professor Sarkar : i^^. *' This firm and constant 
well-wisher Shivaji, after rendering thanks for the grace of God and 
ihe favours of the Emperor — which are clearer than the Sun, — begs 
to inform Your Majesty that, although this well-wisher was led by 
his adverse Fate to come away from your august presence without 
taking leave,^^^ yet he is ever ready to perform, to the fullest extent 
possible and proper, everything that duty as a servant and 

gratitude demand of him It has recently 

come to my ears that, on the ground of the war with me having 
exhausted your wealth and emptied the imperial treasury, Your 
Majesty has ordered that money under the name of jaziya should 
be collected from the Hindus and the imperial needs supplied with 
it. May it please Your Majesty ! That architect of the fabric 
of empire (Jalaluddin), Akbar Padshah, reigned with full power 
for 52 (lunar) years. He adopted the admirable policy of perfect 
harmony {sulh-i-kul) in relation to all the various sects, such as 
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Dadu's followers^^^, sky-worshippers 
(falakia)^^^, malahias}^^ materialists (ansaria), atheists (daharia), 
Brahman and Jain priests. The aim of his liberal heart was to 
cherish and protect all people. So he became famous under the 
title of " the World's Spiritual Guide (Jagat Guru)," then 
Shivaji relates how Jahangir and Shah Jahan loyally 
followed Akbar, and adds: "They, too, had the power of levying 
the jaziya; but they did not give place to bigotry in their hearts, as 
they considered all men, high and low, created by God, to be (living) 
examples of the nature of diverse creeds and temperaments. Their 

^" 8arkar's Aurangzeb, III, p. 325. ^^* This is a reference to Sivaji's flight 
from Delhi in a basket of fruits. 

^^^ They were known as Dadu panthis (^f^^ ) '^ ^ ^)- A Dadu 
panthi is " a follower of the religious sect of Dadu, a cotton cleaner of 
Ahmedabad, in the beginnuig of the seventeenth century, who endeavoured 
to establish a sort of monotheistical worship." (Wilson's Oriental Language 
Glossary of Terms, p. 117, col. 1). 

^®° Shivaji seems to refer to the Paraees under this name. According 
to Steingass, filk ( (J^ * ) means "a fire-worshipper". If we i-ead the- 
word J^i^ as falaq heaven, then falakia would mean heaven or sun- 
woi-shippers. In that sense also the Avord would apply to Parsees. 

"^ The Sect of the Malakites. 

166 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

kindness and benevolence endure on the pages of Time as their 
memorial, and so prayer and praise for these (three) pm-e souls will 
dwell for ever in the hearts and tongues of mankind; among bot It 
great and small. Prosperity is the fruit of one's intentions. 
Therefore, their wealth and good fortune continued to increase, as 
God's creatures reposed in the cradle of peace and safety (in their 
reigns) and their undertakings were achieved. But in Your 
Majesty's reign, many of the forts and provinces have gone out of 
your possession, and the rest will soon do so, too, because there will 
be no slackness on my part in ruining and devastating them. Your 

peasants are down-trodden It is a reign in which 

the army is in a ferment, the merchants complain; the Muslims cry, 

the Hindus are grilled ; most men lack bread at night 

How can the royal spirit permit you to add the hardship of the 
jaziya to this grievous state of things ? The infamy will quickly 
spread from west to east and become recorded in books of 
history that, the Emperor of Hindustan, coveting the beggars ' 
bowls, takes jaziya from Brahmans and Jain monks, yogis, 
sannayasis, bairagis, paupers, mendicants, ruined wretches, and 
the famine-stricken, — that his valour is shown by attacks on the 
wallets of beggars, — that he dashes down (to the ground) the name 
and honour of the Timurids ! May it please Your Majest}^ ! If you 
believe in the true Divine Book and Word of God (i.e., the Quran), 
you will find there (that God is styled) Kabb-ul-alamin. the Lord 
of all men, and not Rabb-ul-musalmin, the Lord of the Muhamadans 
only. Yerily, Islam and Hinduism are antithetical terms. They 
are (diverse pigments) used by the true Divine Painter for blending 
the colours and filling in the outlines (of His picture of the entire 
human species). If it be a mosque, the call to prayer is chanted 
in remembrance of Him. If it be a temple, the bell is rung 
in yearning for Him only. To show bigotry for any man's creed, 
and practices is (^really) altering the words of the Holy Book. Tc 
draw (new) lines on a picture is to find fault with the painter. . 
In strict justice the jaziya is not at all lawful. From the point oi 
view of administration it can be right only if a beautiful woman 
wearing gold ornaments can pass from one country to another 
without fear or molestation. (But) in these days even the cities 
are being plundered, what of the open country ? Not to speak o 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 167 

its injustice, this imposition of the jaziya is an innovation in India, 
and inexpedient. If you imagine piety to consist in oppressing 
*the people and terrorising the Hindus, you ought first to levy 
jaziya from Kana Kaj Singh, who is the head of the Hindus. Then 
it will not be so very difficult to collect it from me, as I am at your 
service. But to oppress ants and flies is far from displaying valour 
and spirit. I wonder at the strange fidelity of your officers that 
they neglect to tell you of the true state of things, but cover a 
blazing fire with straw ! May the sun of your royalty continue to 
shine above the horizon of greatness. "^^^ 

This Jaziya tax, with other acts of indignity, had embittered 

the Rajputs, who, at first, were on the side of 

Jaziyeh alien- the Moghal Emperor. Stanley Lane Poole says 

uted the Raj- ^^ ^]^jg subject : "But for his tax upon heresy, 

puts and helped i i • • . r -.i .i • • i 

the Mahrathas ^^^ ^^^ interierence with tneir inborn sense 

of Shimji. of dignity and honour, Aurangzib might have 

still kept the Rajputs by his side as priceless allies in the 
long struggle in which he was now to engage in the Deccan." ^^^ 
It was the unpopularity of this Jaziyeh that led to the 
popularity of the Mahrathas who were fighting against him. 
" The religious bigotry only inflamed his own puritanical zeal, and 
he was imprudent enough to insist on the strict levying of his pcil- 
tax on Hindus — which had considerably helped the popularity oiti 
the Marathas in the very country where it was most • important 
to lay aside Muhammadan prejudices. His first step on arriving in 
the Deccan was to issue stringent orders for the collection of the 
hated Jaziya. The people and their headmen resisted and rioted 
in vain. A tried officer was detached with a force of horse and foot 
to exact the poll-tax and punish the recusants. It is significant 
that in three months this sagacious officer reported that he had 
collected the poll-tax of Burhanpur for the past year (Rs. 26,000) 
and begged the Emperor to appoint some one else to carry on the 
unpleasant business (Khafi Khan, Elliot's History of India, Vol. 
VII, pp. 310, 311) 164. 

"2 Sarkar's Aurangzeb, III, pp. 324-29. 

i«3 S. Lane Poole's Aurangzib (1908), p. 142. 

^^* Ibid., pp. 174-175. The poll tax officer was called '' Amin-i-Jizya," 

168 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Dr. John Fryer, who had landed in India in 1672 and had gone 

to Surat after visiting various places, gives a 

(c) Dr. John brief account of the Parsees at Surat. ^^^ He saysp 

ryer on e ^]^gj.gjn that the Parsees, when he first landed in 
Jazieh over the ' , ' 

Parsees. India abstained from eating flesh following the 

Hindus usage, but that when the Moslems came 

they took to flesh-eating. So^ when Aurangzeb imposed poll-tax 

upon non-MoslemSj they expected that, as they did not follow 

Hindu customs, they would be exempted, but that was not the 

case. He says : " On this side the Water ^^^ are People of another 

Offspring than those we have yet mentioned ; these be called 

Parseys, who were made free Denizens by the Indians before the 

Moors ^^^ were Masters and have continued to Inhabit where they 

first set Footing, not being known above Forty Miles along the 

Sea-coast, nor above Twenty mile Inland... where they 

complying with some Propositions, as not to Kill any Beasts or 

living Creatures, and Conform to many of the Geniue^^^ Ceremonies 

were Entertained and allowed to live among them. Since the Moors 

have Subdued the Country, they think themselves not obliged by 

the former Capitulation, they Feeding on both Fish and Flesh ; 

and for that reason were in hopes of exemption from the present 

Poll, pretending their Law agreeable to the Moors, but they 

would not free them from the Tax. These drink Wine, and are of 

the Race of the Ancient Persians." 

We learnfrom the Ahkam-i Alamgiri (No.72) ^*^ that Aurangzeb 
was inexorable in the matter of levying the Jaziy eh. 
Aurangzib Once, Firuz Jang, suggested that, in order to 
the collection i^^^^^^® ^^^ population of a certain place on the 
of Jaziyeh. banks of the river Bhima, which supplied provi- 

sions for the imperial camp, " the poll-tax (Jaziya) 
on the Hindu residents of the place " may be abolished "... 
" The Emperor wrote : I do not accept the helpers from 

165 j^g^ Account of East India and Persia in Eight letters, being nine- 
years' Travels; begun 1671 and finished 1681 (1698), p. 117. i 
^^® i.e., the river Tapti. 
^®'' i.e., the Mahomedans. 
^^^ i.e., the Hindus. 
"* Anecdotes of Aurangzib by J. Sarkar, 2nd ed. of 1925, p. 132. {j 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 169 

among the infidels. Yoiir wish for the colonising of the grain 
market at the tomb, and your upsetting the command contained 
in the text-book of the holy Quran concerning Jaziya, which is 
(' Chastise them till they pay Jaziya from the hand because they 
are humbled '), by substituting for it the words *they deserve to be 
excused,' are a thousand stages remote from the perfect wisdom 
and obedience to the august Religious Laws which are possessed by 
this trusted servant aware of my sentiments." ^^^. 

The Venitian traveller Niccolao Manucci was a very harsh 

critic of Aurangzib's reign. But, what he 

Manucci on Au- ^^J^ about Aurangzib's inexorableness about 

rangzib's inex- the imposition of this tax is supported by 

orableness about ^^^^^ authorities.^^i He says that the tax was 
this tax. . -^ 

unposed in 1678-1679, in spite of the opposition 

of " all the high-placed and important men at the 

Court The King stood firm, still more so because 

it was his purpose to spread the Mahomedan religion 

among those people (the Hindus). He was of the opinion 

that he had found in this tax an excellent means of 

succeeding in converting them, besides thereby replenishing his 

treasuries greatly. "^^^ He said to his nobles who opposed : " All 

my thoughts are turned towards the welfare and the development 

of my kingdom and towards the propagation of the religion of the 

great Muhammad." ^^^ Manucci says that, at last, his eldest sister 

Begam Sahib, entreated him to keep away from the tax, but to no 

purpose. She represented Hindustan to be a vast ocean and the 

king and the royal family as ships in it and said : "If the ships 

and the sailors must always try to render the seas favourable and 

pacific towards them in order to navigate with success and arrive 

happily at port ; in the same way your Majesty ought to appease 

and soften the ocean of your subjects." With these words " she 

attempted to throw herself at his feet." But he disregarded her 

"« Ibid., pp. 132-33. According to Sarkar, Khafi Khan, II, 279, 378, 
Akhbarat year 38 sheet 232 speaks of Aurangzib's strictness for the Jaziyeh 
Vide Elphinstone's History of India for his severity in the matter of the 
Jaziyeh (Vol. II, p. 495.) 

^''^ Storia Do Magor or Mogul India, translated by William Irvine, (1907), 
Vol. Ill, pp. 288-91. i'2 Jbid, pp. 288-9. "3 Jhid, p. 289. 

170 ' Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

entreaties and cooly said : " Madam, forget not that when 
Muhammad entered the world it was entirely drowned in the 
idolatry of the unbeliever, but no sooner had that incomparable 
prophet reached the age of discretion then he busied himself with 
all his strength in freeing the peoples from so dangerous a condition 
by establishing among them his holy doctrines. Of what methods,. 
I beg you to say, did he make use to gain such a purpose ? Was 
it not by that taxation ? " Manucci says that shortly after, 
there occurred a violent earthquake and the nobles, attributing 
it to the wrath of God, asked Aurangzib to reconsider the matter. 
But he cooly replied : "It is true that the earth lately trembled, 
but it is the result of the joy it felt at the course I am adopting." ^^* 
Then Manucci adds that, for every 25 thousand rupees that he got 
by this tax, the tax gatherer " must have at the least recovered 
one hundred thousand." ^^^ 

Manucci speaks thus about the severity of the tax. "Hindu 
traders living in this empire are forced to pay every year in 
advance a personal tax, as I have once before stated (11.182; 
III. 51; IV. 28). In return, they are given a receipt to serve 
as a passport; but when they travel to another kingdom or 
province of this empire the said passport is of no value. On their 
outward and their return journey the same amount is collected. 
In this way the merchants suffer from the great impositions, and 
thus many of them and of the bankers are ruined. Aurangzib 
rejoices over these failures, in the belief that by such extortion these 
Hindus will be forced into embracing the Mahomedan faith." 

Col. Tod, in his Rajasthan, thought that this tax was one of 

the causes of the overthrow of the Mogul j)Ower. 

(e) Tod on the He says: "To the jezeya and the unwise 

Jaziyeh. pertinacity with which his successors adhered to 

it, must be directly ascribed the overthrow 

of the monarchy. No condition was exempted from this odious 

and impolitic assessment, which was deemed by the tyrant a 

mild substitute for the conversion he once meditated of the 

entire Hindu race to the creed of Islam." ^^^ Tod says that 

^'4 Ihid, p. 291. "5 ihid. 176 The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthanr 
or the Central and Western Rajput States of India, by Lt.-Col. James Tod.' 
1st ed, I, p. 396. Third Reprint (1880), p. 338. 4 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 171 

even the Rajput Rana protested : The Rana remonstrated by 
ktter, in the name of the nation of which he was the head in a 
style of such uncompromising dignity, such lofty yet temperate 
resolve, so much of soul-stirring rebuke mingled with a 
boundless and tolerating benevolence, such elevated ideas of the 
Divinity with such pure philanthropy, that it may challenge 
competition' with any epistolary production of any age, clime, or 
condition, ^'^^a. 

We find from the letters sent by the English Factors here to 

England in 1669, that, in April 1669 Aurangzib 

if) Evidence ^^d issued orders " for the destruction of infidel 
jro7n the English i i i 

Factory Re- temples and the suppression of infidel 

ports about the teachings." ^^^ A letter from Surat, dated 26th 

Mrmglib. ^^ November 1669, says : "You have been formerly 

advised what unsufferable tyranny the Bannias 

endured in Surat by the force exercised by these lordly Moors 

on account of their religion ; the sweetness of which the Cozzy 

(Kazi) and other officers finding, by the large incomes paid by 

the Bannians to redeeme their places of idolatrous worship from 

being defaced and their persons from their malice, did prosecute 

their covetous avengers with that frequency and furious zeale 

that the general body of the Bannias began to groan under 

their affliction and to take up resolves of flying the country. A 

nephew of your antient Sherofi Tulcidas Parrack was among others 

inveigled and turned Moor, which was a great heart-breaking to 

your Bannian servants and some dishonour to your house." ^^^ We 

read further : *' Ever since the flight of the Bannians the trade of 

Surat hath suffered great obstruction ; and 'tis the opinion of many 

wise men that it will prove of fatal consequence, to the utter ruin 

of it in case the King (^'.e., Aurangzib) doth not take some effectual 

healing order for the making of this breach. For most of the 

sheroffs and moneyed men doe think of calling (in ?) their stocks and 

(according to the custome of this country) burying the greatest part 

underground ; so the bulke of trade, which is maintained and 

Carrey ed on chiefly on credit, must necessarily fail." ^^® 

"«a Ibid, 1st ed. I, pp. 379-80. "' The English Factories in India- 
1668-69. by Sir Forest, p. 190. ^'' Ibid, pp. 190-91. ^"» Ibid, p. 197. 

-172 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

The Date of (a) Prof. Sarkar gives the date of the imposi- 
'^^/.T. ^f ^.^'f ^^ tion of the Jaziyeh tax as 2nd April 1679^^. (6) 
Dr. Fryer, m his third letter, dated Bombaim 
1675 Sept. 22 "^^^ says : "Even at this instant he is on a Project 
to bring them (the heathens) all over to his Faith, and has already 
begun by two several Taxes or Polls, very severe ones, especially 
upon the Brachmins making them pay a Gold Kupee an Head 
and the inferior Tribes proportionable ; which has made some 
Kajaahs revolt, and here they begin to fly to the Portugal Countries, 
and Bombaim". Thus, according to Fryer it was imposed before 
1675. (c) According to Elphinstone, it was imposed some time after 
the insurrection of the Satnarinis, a sect of Hindu devotees at Narnol. 

He says : " These disturbances had irritated his temper 

and led him to take the last step in along course of bigotry 

and impolicy by reviving the Jezia or capitation tax on Hindus. "^^^ 
Now, this revolt of this sect of devotees was in 1676.^^*^ So, accord- 
ing to Elphinstone, this tax was imposed after 1676. The people 
objected but when Aurangzib resorted to harsh treatment " the tax 
was submitted to without further demur," in 1677.^^"^ (d) Stanley 
Lane-Poole does not give a certain date but says that it was " in ,i 
or about 1675. "^^^ (e) Grant Duff says, that Aurangzib imposed | 
the Jaziyeh, when he was in Burhanpur.^®^ He says : " During 
his stay at the former city (Burhanpur), amongst other arrange- 
ments he issued orders for the collection of the Jizeea, a poll-tax 
levied on all his subjects, not Mahomedans, which was to be as 
strictly exacted in the Deccan as in the northern part of the 
empire". ^^^ He had gone to Burhanpur in 1683.^^® So this means 
that the tax was imposed before 1683. (/) Eobert Orme, gives 
the date as 1679.^^^ (g) M anucci says that " it was during the 

^*" J. Sarkar's (a) Aurangzib, III, p. 308; (6) Studies in Mogul India 
(1919), p. 44 ; (c) Ahkam-i. Aurangzib (1912), p. 12. 

^^^ Dr. John Fryer's " New Account of East India and Persia, begun 
1672 and finished 1681 " published in 1698, p. 144. 

i«2 Elphmstone's History of India (1841), Vol. II, p. 490. ^^^ Ibid, p. 489. 

"* Ibid, p. 494. Elphinstone gives this date (1677) in his Hst of contents, 
Vol. II, p. XXVI. i«5 Stanley L. Aurangzib (1908), p. 125. 

i8« History of the Mahrathas, Ed. revised by S. M. Edwardas (1921) 
Vol. I, p. 252. !«' Ibid, p. 252. "« Ibid, p. 246. 

Orme's Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire (1805), p. 74. 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 173 

years 1678 and 1679 that Aurangzeb decided to impose a new 
tribute upon all Hindus." '^^ In another place, he says : " The 
death of Rajah Jaswant Singh was used by Aurangzeb as an 
opening to oppress the Hindus still more, since they had no longer 
any valiant and powerful rajah who could defend them. He 
imposed on the Hindus a poll-tax, which everyone was forced to 
pay, some more, some less."^^^ Now Jaswant Singh died in about 
1678. So, we may take it, that the tax was levied in 1678 or 1679 
(h) According to the Muntakhabu-1-Lubab, the tax was imposed 
in the Hijri year 1082, i.e., about 1672, for suppressing the power 
of the infidels. ^^^ (^) The Ma-asir-i Alamgiri gives the date as 1090 
Hijri, ^.e. 1680 A.C.^^^ (j) Shivaji had written a long letter to Aurang- 
zeb against the imposition of the Jaziya.^^^ In that letter, he says : 
"But in your Majesty's reign, many of the forts and provinces have 
gone out of your possession and the rest will do so, too, because there 
will be no slackness on my part in ruining and devastating them " ^^' 
Shivaji had captured, in all, 191 forts and had himself built 126 
forts. 1^^ Shivaji refers in this letter, to his visit of, and captivity 
in, and flight from, Aurangzeb's Court in 1666. So, when he speaks 
of his capture of the forts, he speaks of re-conquests. The re- 
conquest of many took place in 1667-1669.^^^ The re-conquest of 
Sinhaghad, Purandhar and Mahuli took place between 1670 and 
1672. 1^^ So, the letter seems to have been written after the 
conquest of these forts which ended in about 1672. Thus, we take 
it that, according to Shivaji, the date of the jaziyeh was some time 
before 1672. 

19" StoriaDo Mogor, edited by W. Irvine, III, p. 288. 

"1 Ibid, II, pp. 233-34. 

192 ^ tiT ^L. U u-> jik^ ^^ Lj The Mimtakhab Al Lubab of Khati 
Khan, edited by Maulavi Kabir Al Din Ahmed, Part II (1874), p. 255 
Elliot's History of India, Vol. VII, p. 296. 

1^3 Elliot's History of India, Vol. VII, p. 296, n* 1. According to Irvine 
Ma'asir's date, 1st Rabi I 1090 H. corresponds to April 12, 1679. (Storia Do 
Mogor of Manucci by Irvine, Vol. Ill, p. 288, n. 2.) 

i«* Vide Sarkar's Aurangzib, Vol. Ill, p. 325q. ^»^ Ibid, p. 327. 

^^^ For a list of these forts, vide " The Life and Exploits of Shivaji, by 
Jagannath Lakhshman Markar (1886), pp. 103-107. ^" The Life of Shivaji 
Maharaj, by Prof. Takakhav (1921), pp. 298-312. ^"^ Ibid, p. 313 et seq. 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Thus, we gather the following different dates from the different 
authors : — 



Ma'asir-i Alamgiri 

Muntakhab-ul Lubab of Khafi Khan 

.. April 1679 
. . 1672 


Robert Orme . . . . 




. . 1678-1679 



Grant Duff .. 

. . before 1675 
.. before 1683 



Stanley Lane-Poole 

. . about 1675 




. 2nd April 1679 
. In or before 1672 

Rate of the Tax. 

I think, we may attach much importance to Dr. Fryer's state- 
ment, written on 22nd September 1675 (in his third letter from 
India), saying, that Aurangzib had already laid the poll tax at the 
time, he wrote. So, we may take it that it was imposed some 
time before September 1675. Stanley Lane-Poole also gives 
"in or about 1675 ".^^^ Khafi Khan gives 1672. So, we may 
take it that it was imposed before 1675 and that it may be in 1672. 

This jaziyeh tax brought a large revenue to Aurangzib. " It 
is recorded that the city of Burhanpur alone paid 
26,000 rupees on account of this tax, and the total 
for all Hindustan must have been enormous. "^^^ 
It fell heavily upon the poor. Authorities differ 
somewhat in the matter of the rate. Scott says that it was " thir- 
teen rupees per annum for every 2,000 rupees worth of property 
possessed by Hindoos."2oo Prof . Sarkar says : " The rates of taxation 
were fixed at 12, 24 and 48 dirhams a year for the three classes 
respectively, — or Rs. 3 J, Rs. 6| and Rs. 13 J. On the poor, there- 
fore, the incidence of the tax was 6 per cent, of the gross income ; 
on the middle class it ranged from 6 to ^ p.c, and on the rich it was 
always lighter even than 2 J per thousand. In violation of modern 
canons of taxation, the Jaziya hit the poorest portion of the 

199 Aurangzib and the Decay of the Moghal Empire by Stanley Lane 
Poole (1908), p. 125. 

^°° Scott's Deccan quoted in Grant Duff's History of the Mahrathas. 
revised by S. M. Edwards (1921), Vol. 1, p. 252. 

Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh . 175- 

population hardest. It could never be less than Rs, 3^ on a man 
which was the money value of nine maunds of wheat flour at the 
average market price of the end of the 16th century (Ain I 63).' 
The State, therefore, at the lowest incidence of the tax, annually 
took away from the poor man the full value of one year's food as 
the price of religious indulgence. Secondly, all government officials 
were exempted from the tax, though they were the wealthiest 
members of their respective classes in Society.^^^ 

Dr. Fryer thus speaks of the rate : " Even at this instant he 
is on a Project to bring them (Gophers, unbelievers) all over to his 
Faith and has already begun by two several Taxes or Polls, very 
severe ones, especially upon the Brachmins (Brahmins), making 
them pay a Gold Rupee (i.e. a Mohor) an head, and the inferior 
Tribes proportionable, which has made some Rajahs revolt, and 
here they begin to fly to the Portugal countries and to Bombaim. ^o^- 

Manucci gives the rate as varying from Rs. 3 J on the poor to 
Rs. 13 J on merchants. 2°^ Manucci says : " Great merchants paid 
thirteen rupees and a half, the middle class six rupees and a quarter 
and the poor three rupees and a half every year. This refers to 
men and not to women ; boys began to pay as soon as they passed 
their fourteenth year. Aurangzeib did this for two reasons : first 
because by this time his treasures had begun to shrink owing to 
expenditure on his campaigns. Secondly, to force the Hindus to 
become Mahomedans, Many who were unable to pay turned 
Mahomedans, to obtain relief from the insults of the collectors. "^^-^ 

-"^ Sarkar's Aurangzib, Vol. Ill, p. 307, 

-"2 A New Account of East India and Persia, Letter III, Ciiap. Ill, p. 107. 

-"^ A recent writer Mr. Syed Hashimi (Faridabadi), in his article, " The 
lieal Alamgir" (Islamic Culture, of October 1928, p. 627) gives the rate which 
approaches that of Manucci. He says : "It was levied on non-miUtary, 
well-to-do male adults only, who had an income of at least 200 dirhams a 
year, which, at the lowest estimate, should be computed in its purchasmg 
value as the equivalent of about 500 rupees in the terms of the present-day 
currency. On this income 3^ rupees per annum were charged, while the 
maximum estimate of the tax was about Rs. 14 per annum levied on an income 
of more than 10,000 Dirhams a year." 

2"* Storia Do Mogor, edited by Irvine, Vol. 11, p. 234. 

176 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

The Qisseh says, that Kustam Manock went personally to 

the Divan and settled arrangements to pay the 

Nusserwanji, Jaziyeh annually (cc. 120-22). But, when some 

whowasdepu^^ P^or people of other communities individually 

zipeh. appealed to him for help, he asked his Naib, i.e., 

assistant, Noshirwan, to pay the Jaziyeh, for the 
poor from his money (c. 150). Now as the author does not give 
the full name of Noshirwan, it is difficult to identify him. 
One Nusserwanji is referred to, later on, in the Qisseh, in the 
account of Rustam Manock's visit of Naosari on his return from the 
Mogul Court, where he had gone with the English ambassador. 
He is there spoken of as a relative in whose house Rustam lodged 
as a guest (c. 406) . It is possible that both these persons may be one 
and the same person. We will speak of this Noshirwan, later on, 
i n our account of the visit to Naosari. But, if these two Noshirwans 
are different, it is difficult to identify this Noshirwan.^^^ 

The Qisseh refers to the views of the Sad-dar Nazm on the 

subject of the Jaziyeh. It says that, according to 

The Sad-dar ^^i^ Sad-dar, a person who relieves another from the 

cc. 162-65. ' oppression (zulm) of the Jaziyeh is well rewarded for 

this act. God gives him a place in the Heaven. His 
soulis respected in the presence of Zarthosht. The Sad-dar Nazm (i.e., 
theBook of 100 Chapters in verse) was writtenin 1495 A. C. by Iranshah 
bin Malek Shah. It is possible that it was based on the Sad-dar Nasr 
(the Sad-dar in prose) , which was written by three persons , Medyomah , 
Vardosht and Siavaksh, some time after the Arab Conquest. -*^^ 

^"^ One may be tempted to say that if he was Rustam's relative, he may 
be his grandson Noshirwan, the son of Bahmanji: But the dates make 
this supposition impossible. 1 am thankful to Mr. Sohrab P. Davar for 
kindly drawing my attention to the inconsistency of dates in his letter of 
29th August 1928. So, we must take it that, either he was the same Nusser- 
wanji as the one mentioned later on, or some other person. 

^"^ For a detailed account of the Sa,d-dar, vide (a) West S.B.E., Vol. 
XXIV, Introduction, pp. XXXVI-XXXIX ; (6) Grundriss der Iranisehen 
Philologie, Bank II, p. 123 ; (c) Sad-dar Nasr and Sad-dar Bundehesh by 
Bomanji Nusserwanji Dhabhar ; (d) Dr. Hyde has given a translation in 
Latin of the Sad-dar Nasr in his " Historia Religionis veterum Persarum," 
under the heading of Magorum Liber Sad-dar (2nd ed. of 1760, pp. 443-512); 
(c) The Sad-dar Bahr-i-tavil (i.e., the Sad-dar in long meters), which has 
been translated into Gujarati by Dastur Jamaspji Minochehrji Jamaspasana 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 177 


We find the following references to the Jaziyehinthe Sad-dar 
Xazm's 66th Chapter, which asks one to remain steadfast in his 
* belief on the Mazdayasnan religion. ^^ 

^^Uj ti^Jj ri'f^ ijT /"^ J;lcVi 

-^v^-^ . .J /-'..,j.3 ..^;l . ^Lu 

-°' The first line of the chapter thus speaks of its contents : 

1 am thankful to Mr. Bomanji Nusserwanji Dhabhar for helping me to trace 
the reference. 

-"^ (Saddar Chap. 66 11. 14-18) Manuscript of the Sad-dar Nazm in the 
K. K. Cama Oriental Institute. Vide for this Ms. the Catalogue of the 
Institute by Mr. B. N. Dhabhar ( 1923), p. 149, No. R. 61. The colophon at 
the end, gives the date of the Ms. as roz Aban, Mah Asfandarmad, year 
1103 A. Y. (i.e., 1734 A. C). It was written in Surat in the country 
(balad) of Gujarat in Hind by Mobad of Broach, Herbad Kausji, son of 
Padamji, son of Dastur Kamdin, son of Dastur Faridiui, aon of 

Dastur Padam, son of Osta Ram, son of Herbad Kahanan ( i^! ^ ^^ ; 

son of Mobad Shehyar ( ^ ^ ^ ) son of Mobad Naharyar { )^ )^ )• 
This scribe Kausji was the son of Dastur Padamji Kamdinji, referred to in a 
document of 1st August 1716 A. C. (Pars«e Prakash I, p. 849.) 

Another old copy of the sad-dar gives us following variants in the above 
verse, e.g., c. (couplet) 1, 1. 1 has ^y' I i>f . c. 2, 1. 2 has ij; 1 *V ^J^ ^ instead 

of cj'*^ u/^' ^*^^ *^® ^^' ^^^' ^^ ( Brelvi's Catalogue p. XXXI). 
This Ms. has no colophon. The chronogram gives 14th of Mohram 900 as 
the date. (The chronogram J^ (300+400+200=900) gives the 
Mahomedan year of the orighial composition, which, according to West 
(S. B. E. Vol. 24 Introd. p. 37), comes to 14th October 1495 A.C. 

178 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


Translation. — If a person, whether poor or rich (ht. pleasant- 
souled), possesses nothing, for the tax (money) of the Jaziya, 
wherewith he may give that Jaziyeh and if he shall be lost^^^ to the 
-evil-minded, and if, under the circumstances (lit. in that place) 
you give him friendship (i.e., your helping hand), and if you alone 
pay for his Jaziyeh, then know, that you have (as it were) saved 
him from being killed, and you become, in your work, a specially 
good beh-din {i.e., Zoroastrian). In the spiritual world, you will get 
from this good religion (i.e., good religious act), much (lit. incal- 
culable) recompense, reward and righteousness. 

^j^f cXJU — ^ ^f I; ^y^ ;j (h) 

Translation. If anybody exacts money for Jaziyeh and spends 
it after his family ,^^^ then know that he eats nasa (i.e.^ a noxious 

^°^ Az dast raftan or shudan, to be lost. cf. v^l'^^l "^1" ^^3' 
Here, the meaning is: "If he, out of poverty, leaves his religion, for not being 
able to pay the tax and joins the evil minded (badan), i.e., the Jud-din. 

210 ti,-^ hazz, cutting up by the roots, a breaking off (Steingass), 

^^^ U^iJ wabal, crime, sin, fault " {Ibid). 

212 The word is jj ) tii liw khandan, in the Ms. which I have followed, 
but the first letter ^ is miswritten for ^ 

213 jjiS diminishing. The word may be read as ^ o gahi, 
i.e. in a (short) time, from ga.h, time. 

21* Ch. 66 11.24-28, Mulla Feroze Library Ms. op cit. 
21^ Ayal, wife and children. 

Ritstam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 179 

thing). There is nothing worse than this in our religion. You 
must break away from (i.e., avoid) this money, because this money 
is a crime on your neck. In whatever place (or way) this money 
is spent, know, that there will remain no progeny (or stock) in 
that family. Annihilation will prevail in that place and the 
family will disappear by diminution. 

The reason, why the Sad-dar,^^^ written in Persia, refers to the 
Jaziyeh, is that Jaziyeh was a tax imposed after 

in Persia ^^*^^ *^® Arab conquest upon the Zoroastrians of Persia. 
The Zoroastrians of Persia had to pay the tax 

upto the year 1882, when, after constant representations, it was 

cancelled. ^^^. 

II. Shivaji^s Sack of Surat. 

The second important subject referred to by the Qisseh is that 
The Account of the Sack of Surat by Shivaji. The account 
;Lf's/™ of SWvaji's Sack of Surat as given in the 
iSack of Surat. Kisseh is briefly as follows : 

^^^ There are several sad-dars, all mostly treating of the same subject, but 
one is in prose, another in verse and the third in verse of the meter called 
behr-i tavil. They all were written in the 14th or 15th century. The Sad- 
'ar Nazm (in verse) was written in 864 A. Y. (1495 A. C), but the prose 
^addar was written long before this. For another Ms. of the Sad-dar Nazm 
in the Mulla Feroze Library, vide the Supplementary Catalogue of Arabic - 
Persian Mss. by Mr. S. A. Brelvi ( 1917), p. XXXI. 

2^' Mr. BomanjiBehramji Patel, in his Parsee Prakash, Vol. I (pp. 654-66) 
gives a very interesting account of the work of the Persian Zoroastrian 
Amelioration fund founded in Bombay on 11th January 1855. One of the 
objects of that fund was to relieve the Zoroastrians of Persia from the buixlen 
of the Jaziyeh tax. The late Mr. Manockji Hataria, the agent in Persia of 
the above fund, had been to the Zoroastrians of Persia, what Rustam Manock 
was to the Zoroastrians of Surat. We find a succinct account of the incidence 
of the Jaziyeh in Persia, included in the above account (Ibid, pp. 659-66). 
The annual payment by the Bombay Parsees for their co-rehgionists in 
Persia came to about Rs. 5,000. The Bombay Parsees paid it regidarly from 
about 1858 to 1881. The total they paid durmg these years came to about 
Rs. 1,09,564. Rich Parsees of Bombay had given large sums of money to be 
permanently invested, for the Jaziyeh to be paid annually from its interest. 

180 Rustam, Manoch and the Pe'isian Qisseh 

1. Shivaji is spoken of as Shiva^i^ ghani ( gle), i.e., Shiva, 
tlie plunderer. 

2. He came with a large equipage (hashm-i faravan). The * 
author gives the number of his followers as 50,000. 

3. He arrested men, women and even milk-drinking children 
(kudakan shir khur) from all four directions and detained them in 
prison ( ^j.^^^ )d c. 172). 

4. He carried away as booty (gharat), from all houses in the 
city, siUcen cloth (qumas), gold, silver, household furniture (kala) 
and jewellery (or articles, ganj). 

5. As a result of this confusion of arrests (gir o dar) ^^®, there 
was a general flight (gurigh). 

6. He set fire everywhere. 

7. All were stupified (satuh) by his oppression. 

8. Several helpless people were imploring for forgiveness from 
zulmaneh, ^^^ i.e., money for ransom. 

Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, the first Baronet, had announced the payment . 
of a sum of Rs. 25,000 for the purpose, before the foundation of the Fund, 
and his sons, later on, set apart that sum. The above-mentioned account 
gives one an idea of the distress which the Zoroastrians of Persia had to suffer 
for this tax. It Avas in Ramzan 1299 Hijri (August 1882), that the late Shah 
Nasserud-din, after several representations from the Parsees of Bombay and 
England, during his visit of England, kindly cancelled the tax. 
Sir H. Rawlinson and Mr. Edwards Eastwick, who were appointed to look 
after the arrangements for the Shah's visit to England in 1873, and various 
other British officers, tried their best to help the Parsees in this matter. At 
last, it was Mr. Ronald Thomson, the then British ambassador at Teheran, 
who, with his letter, dated Teheran, 27th September 1882, addressed to Sir 
(then Mr.) DinshaAV Manockji Petit, Bart., sent the royal farmdn with its 
translation, cancelling the tax. The farmdn is headed : " Royal Farman 
issued by His Majesty Nassereddeen Shah, relieving the Zoroastrians of Persia 
from the payment of the tribute annually levied from them under the name 
of Jezieh. " {lUd, p. 662.) 

^^® 'Ji ' at the end of the name is simply honorific. Even modern writers 
on his fife, at times, speak of him as Shiva, e.g., Prof. Jadunath Sarkar in his 
"Shivaji and his Times" (1919). 

219 Cf. Gujarati H^Mii 

220 ^ Ulis Steingass does not give the word, but the word seems to mean 
j.an8om, lit. a sum of money given for being released from opi3ression (zulm). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 181 

9. Those who were arrested sent words to their wives and 
children, that they were much oppressed and that they will not b»* 

* free from the fetters of the unholy Shiva ghani, unless zulmaneh 
or ransom was paid. 

10. Those to whom the errand was sent were quite helpless 
as they themselves were plundered and their houses burnt and 
they themselves were without food and dress. 

11. So, broken-hearted and ashamed to ask (pur khajal), they 
went to Rustam Manock and prayed for help. They said that 
Shiva ghani has carried away some men from our houses and asks 
Rs. 10,000 as ransom for these men. He has come like Ahriman and 
has become an enemy of the city and the villages. 

12. He had an army of 50,000 soldiers. 

13. That army had, at its head, two leaders, one of whom i> 
vicious (or cruel) and the other devillish. They were hostile 
to the Zoroastrians. They devastated the city and the villages 
and carried away from all houses silver, ornaments, apparel and 
grain as pillage and then set fire to the houses. They killed some 
and tied on their backs the hands of others. Among us, there are 
some who have run away from captivity. 

14. Rustam Manock was affected by what they said. He 
gave the sum of ransom and also gave them food and clothing. 

The sack is described by several contemporary writers — 
contemporary of the time of Shivaji — of different nationalities,. 
Hindu, Mahomedan, English, French and Dutch. But the above 
account is from the pen of a contemporary Parsee priest, and 
as such, , it may interest many. Now, before speaking of the 
Sack, I will say a few words on Surat and on the life of Shivaji. 

Surat, standing on the southern bank of the Tapti, was about 

12 miles from the sea. The city had a fort, but 

Surat at the no wall round it, at the time of the first sack. 

^S^ck^ '^^'''"'^* ' I^ ^^'^^ ^f*®^ *^^ ^^^* ^^^^ *^^* Aurangzeb ordered 

a wall to be built round the city. The city of 

Surat was, at that time, to the Western coast of India, what 

Bombay is at present. It was a big emporium of trade between 

"182 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

this part of India and the West. Again, it was the port 
for the pilgrims to go to Mecca. So, it was frequented, now and 
then, by rich pilgrims from all parts of India ^^^^ and even from 
Central Asia. This visit of rich pilgrims to the city added to its 
wealth which is said to have been " boundless" .^^^ " The imperial 
customs alone yielded a revenue of 12 lakhs of Rupees a year in 

It is said that, in the time of Akbar and Jahangir, the Portuguese 
having a good fleet of ships in the sea near i"^, molested the pilgrim 
ships and exacted ransoms from the pilgrims on them. To save 
themselves from this molestation, the pilgrims, before going on 
board the ships, took pass-ports from the Portuguese at Surat. 
They charged very high fees for these pass-ports. It is said that a 
daughter of Humayun had to give to the Portuguese a small village 
as the fee for her pass-port when she went on a pilgrimage. Shivaji 
himself, following the European powers, built up a fleet with a 
view to command the sea and especially with a view to command 
the pilgrim traffic. The population of the city in Aurangzeb's and 
Shivaji's time was about 2 lakhs of people living in an area of about 
4 square miles. The rich people occupied, as now, the river frontage. 
Surat was one of the richest cities of the Empire and it 
" contributed something like half a million sterling (about Rs. 75 
lacs) in addition to the land tax" to Aurangzeb.^^^ From the fact 
of Surat having given to Shivaji during his several sacks a good 
deal of wealth, Shivaji is said to have called it " the key of his 
treasury." ^^4 

In the time of Aurangzeb, it was the head-quarters of the 
Parsees. The Khulasatu-t-tawarikh, written some time between 
1695 and 1699, thus refers to them, while speaking of Surat : " The 
sect of Zoroastraians (Parsis) having come from Ears and taken 
up their abode here, keep up among themselves the practice of 

220a Thomas Moore, in his Lala Rookh, represents the king of Bucha- 
rest coming there from Central Asia to go on a pilgrimage. This was in 
the time of Aurangzeb. 

221 Prof. Sarkar's Shivaji, p. 98. 222 jj^^^^ 

223 Stanley Poole's Aurangzeb, p. 127. 

22* J. H. Bilimoria's Letters of Aurangzeb, p. 124, n. 3. 

Riistam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 183 

fire-worship. "225 According to the supplement to the Mirat-i- 
Ahmadi, written between 1750 and 1760,226 Aurangzib built the 
rampart wall round the city, to prevent the Deccanis raiding the 
city .227 The wall, enclosing some of the *puras' ( M^i ), known as 
the Alampanah wall, was built later in the reign of Farruksiyar.228 
It is said that, in the early times of the Sultans of Gujarat, Eander 
on the other side of Tapti was the port, but in 947 Hijri (1540 A.C.) 
Safar Aga (Ashgar Aga), known as Khudawand Khan in the reign 
of Sultan Mahmud, built the city Fort, to protect the city " in 
order to put an end to the piracy of the Europeans who were 
harassing the inhabitants. "229 "phe ports of Broach, Bulsar, Naosari, 
Ghandevi, Chikli, Sirbhawan and others were under the jurisdiction 
of the Mutasaddi of Surat.23f' The port of Daman belonged to the hat- 
wearers (the kohla-po-sh), i.e, the Europeans (the Portuguese). 2^1 

According to De Laet,2^2 g^rat had, at first, "a large fort 
surrounded with a wall of sand stone and defended by a number 
of warlike engines, some of which are of exceptional size". 
The town was fenced on three sides by "a dry ditch and an earthen 
rampart with three gates, of which one opens upon the road 
to Variauvv (Variao)23^, (latterly spoken of as «=lifl5Hi<l oipi^a 
(Variavi Bhagal) a small village where travellers to Cambay 
crossed the river Tapti." The second gate was the Brampori 
gate and the third Uonsaray or Nassaray (Naosari) gate. 
According to this author, a large number of cotton fabrics 
were woven at Naosari. 2^-^ 

22^ The India of Aurangzib, with extracts from the Khulasatu-t-tawarikh 
and the Chahar Gulshan, by Prof. Jadunath Sarkar (1901), p. 63. 

22« The Supplement to the Mirat-i-Ahmadi, by Syed Nawab Ali and 
Charles Norman Seddon (1924), p. X. "' Ibid, p. 213 "« Ibid. 

229 Ibid. 230 JJ^i^^ p 229 231 if^id^ 

232 Vide the Empire of the Great Mogol (De Imperio Magni Mogolis), 
a Translation of De Laet's " Description of India and Fragment of Indian 
History," translated by J. S Hoyland and annotated by S. N. Banerjee (1928), 
p. 17. Joannes De Laet (1593-1649 A. C.) had begun his life as the Director 
of the Dutch Company of the West Indies. His book, De Imperio Magni 
MogoHs, was published in Latin in 1631. 233 /^^-^^ p 17^ 

23* For some further particulars about Surat in the times of the Moghal 
Emperors, vide my Paper on "A Petition in Persian by Dastur Kaikobad 
to Emperor Jehangir " (Journal of the K. R. Cama's Oriental Institute 
No. 13, pp. 67-237). 

184 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Shivaji belonged to the Mahratlia race, whose country was- 
Maharashtra (lit. the great kingdom), the country 
Shivaji. His between the Central Provinces and the Arabian 
ancestry. Sup- g^^ rpj^^ Konkan was that part of the Maharashtra 
ship with ancient which ran between the Ghats and the sea. It is 
Persia. a very hilly country and the towering heights 

of some of its mountains are studded with 
forts which are all Mahratha forts. Ramdeo, a prince 
of this Maratha race, was ruling in the Deccan, when, in 
about 1294, Ala-ud-din Khilji invaded it. It was Malik 
Ambar, an Abyssinian officer of the Mahomedan kings of 
Bijapur, who gave military training to the Mahrathas and 
brought them into prominence. When he found that his 
master, the king of Bijapore, and the kings of other Mahome- 
dan states of the Deccan could not stand against the large trained 
armies of the Moghal Emperors on the plains, he resorted to 
mountain-fighting. He took Mahratha soldiers under him, and, 
living with them on hill forts, made matters hot for the Moghal 
armies on the plains. Thus, the Maharathas were trained under 
him to hill-fighting. Shahii,^^^ the father of Shivaji who belonged 
to the Bhonsle family of the Mahrathas was at first an officer in 
the Mahomedan state of Ahmednagar and then in that of Bijapore. 

^^^ It is said of Shahji, the father of Shivaji, that he was given the name- 
of Shah from the name of a Musulman pir (saint), Shah Sharif of Ahmed- 
nagar, who was engaged by his father Malaji, the son of Babaji Bhonsle, the 
founder of the Bhonsle family, to pray for a son, as he had no son, though 
he prayed to Mahadeo and to Bhavani, the tutelary deity of the family. 
As the Pir's prayer was accepted Malaji gave his son the name of the Pir 
(The Life and Exploits of Shivaji by Jagannath Lakshman Mankar (1886) 
p. II.) The following tree explains his^ ancestry : — • 

Babaji Bhonsle 

I I 

Malaji Vithojee 




ambhajee Rajaram. 

Rusatm Manock and the Persian Qisseh 185 

He, fighting with the above Malick Ambar, distinguished himself 
in the war, against the Mogul Emperors. 23« 

Shivaji was born in 1627, i.e., about 8 years before Rustam 
Shivaji, before ^ Manock. He passed his boyhood in wandering 
ihe Sack of with MawaUs, i.e., the people of the mountain 
'^^*^'^^' villages of Mawal near Poona. Inheriting the 

military plu€k of his father, he headed the Mahrathas and 
took to plundering and conquering. He took the fort 
of Jorna and built that of Rajgarh. He then took 
Poorandhar and several other forts. Thus, rising step by step, 
and taking fort after fort, he became a terror to the state 
of Bijapore under which his father was an officer. The 
Sultan of Bijapore suspected that his father Shahji was in league 
with his son. So he sent for him from his jagir in the Karnatic 
and imprisoned him in a dark stone dungeon. Shivaji was on 
fairly good terms, at that time, with the Mogul Emperor Shah 
Jahan. So, he appHed to Shah Jahan to get his father released. 
Shah Jahan got him released and appointed Shivaji to the command 
of 5,000. At this time, Aurangzeb was the Viceroy of the Deccan, 
but he soon left the Deccan on hearing that Shah Jahan was ill. 
The King of Bijapur, taking advantage of the absence of Prince 
Aurangzeb upon whom Shivaji counted for help, sent his general 
Afzul Khan against Shivaji. Shivaji is said to have proposed 

^^^ A fanciful association connects Shivaji's descent with the ancient 
Persians. Orme says : " He (Sevaji) drew his lineage from the Rajahs of 
Chitore," (Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire by Robert Orme 
(1805) p. 6). Abu Fazl, in his Ain-i-Akbari, says of " the chief of the state 
who was formerly called Rawal that he pretended a descent from Noshirwan 
the Just." (Jarrett's Am-i-Akbari (1891) Vol. II, p. 268, ain 15). Thus 
Shivaji, who is said to have traced his descent from the founder of the Rajput 
class which traced its descent from Noshirwan (Chosroes I who died in about 
570 A.C.), was connected with the ancient Persians. Orme's Note (Note 
VIII Ibid^ p. 182) adds : "A very strange genealogy of a Hindoo andRajhpoot 
Rajah ; for Cosroes was of the religion of Zoroaster, or'the worshippers of fire, 
who although confined to many abstinences, were not restrained from eating 
beef." (For the said connection of the Rajputs with the ancient Persians, vide 
my article ^t^^. ^iw^niilj ^<1><1^ (Oodeypore, the Kashmir of Rajputanas 
in the Hindi Graphic of December 1928, pp. 18-21.) 

186 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

reconciliation and both met at the fort of Pratabghar near Mahblesh- 
war (1659 A. C). Students of history differ as to who was insincere 
and as to who first began a misdeed. Afzul Khan was killed by^ 
Shivaji, as some say, in self-defence. This victory over the King 
of Bijapur led to Shivaji's conquest of the whole of Konkan from 
Kallyan to Goa. Then Shivaji invaded Mughal territories with 
an army under the command of himself and the Peshwa (i.e., Prime 
Minister) Morar Punt. His cavalry spread terror wherever it went.. 
Aurangzeb ordered Shaista Khan, the Viceroy of the Deccan, tO' 
go to fight against Shivaji. Shaista Khan did so and took Poona. 
Shivaji attacked one night the house in which Shaista Khan lived 
at Poona. Shaista Khan was wounded but escaped. Shivaji 
left Poona before the Moghals could collect an army to fight against 
him and attacked Surat. 

Mahratha writers say that Shivaji was inspired by the 
goddess Bhavani. Krishna ji Anant, a member (sabhasad) of the 
Court of Rajaram, the second son of Shivaji, who wrote the life 
of Shivaji at the express desire of Rajaram, says so.^^^ Shivaji 
now took the title of Raja and cast his own coins. Then, he built a 
fleet of his own. It seems that, when he saw that the Portuguese, 
who had a good fleet in the Indian sea, issued pass-ports to the 
pilgrims to Mecca and charged for these pass-ports very high rates, ^^^ 
he also followed suit with a view to amass money. He, with the 
help of his fleet, stopped Muslim pilgrim ships and exacted large 
ransoms from them. This exasperated Aurangzeb, who, upto 
now, tolerated his pillaging acts as those of " a mountain rat'', 
Shah Jahan was still alive and so Aurangzeb did not like to leave 

^^' His translator thus speaks of Bhavani's inspiration : " There is a 
somewhat striking resemblance between the visitations of the Goddess 
Bhavani who appeared into Shivaji on every critical occasion and the 
consultations of Numa PompiUus with the goddess Egeria from whom he 
received instructions in religion and the management of his state affairs " 
(The Life and Exploits^of Shivaji, translated into English from an impub- 
lished Marathi Manuscript by Jagannath Lakshman Mankar (2nd ed., 1886,) 
p. VI). 

^'® It is said that in the case of Humayun's sister, the Portuguese 
were given a village as the price of a pass-port. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 187 

Delhi, lest, in his absence, an attempt may be made to re-instate 
the late king on the throne. Again, he upto now did not like to 
entrust a large army to any general, lest that general with that 
army may turn against him. But a bigoted Mahomedan as he 
was, he did not like Shivaji interfering with the holy work of the 
pilgrimage to Mecca. So, he sent a large army against Shivaji 
under his general Jai Singh, keeping at his court Jai Singh's son 
as a hostage for the good conduct of his father. Another general, 
Dilir Khan, also accompanied the army. In the end, Shivaji had 
to make peace, known as the Peace of Purandhar. Shivaji returned 
to Aurangzeb all the Moghul territories he had conquered. He was 
given certain assignments at Bijapur which brought him l/4th 
of its revenue termed as Chauth (i.e., l/4th part) and 
Sirdeshmukhi. Shivaji then, in alliance with Jai Singh, fought on 
behalf of Aurangzeb against Bijapur and drew Aurangzeb's 
attention towards himself, and, at his invitation, went to Delhi. 
When there, he took indignation at his treatment by Aurangzeb, 
who looked at him somewhat like a prisoner. He then with the 
help of Jai Singh's son, left Delhi secretly having been carried out 
in a basket. He returned to Eaigarh in December 1666. He now 
assumed royalty and was solemnly crowned as a Rajah in 1674. 
Following the custom of the ancient kings of India and of the Moghul 
Emperors, he got himself weighed in gold and gave the gold to 
Brahmans. He had a long fight with the Siddees at Dandeh- 
Rajpurand Janjira. He then invaded Karnatic in 1676. Returning 
victoriously from there, he plundered Jalna in 1679. Now, 
Shivaji's son, Sambhaji, following, as it were, the practice of the 
Moghul Emperor's princes, who, one after another in their turns, 
rebelled against their fathers, rebelled against his father Shivaji 
and joined his father's enemy Dilir Khan, the Moghul general 
who had attacked Bijapur. This, as it were, gave a shock to 
Shivaji. Aurangzeb disapproved this act of Sambhaji and ordered 
Dilir Khan to send to Delhi Sambhaji who, on arriving at 
the Court, was imprisoned there. He^ like his father 
some years before, contrived to escape, and, though apparently 
reconciled to his father, was shut up in the fort of Panalla. 
Shivaji died soon after, on 5th April 1680, at Raigarh at the- 
age of 53. 

188 Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh 

Shivaji is spoken of as Ghani in the Qisseh. The word ghani 

is Arabic and means, according to Steingass,^^^ 

Shivaji spo- " Rich, wealthy, independent, able to dispense 

ken of as ghani ^^j^j^ " ghivaji was undoubtedly a very rich man. 

( ^5^ ) *'^ ^^*^ He had amassed a good deal of wealth, by invasions, 

Qisseh. sacks and pillages. In fact, one of his objects in 

this sack of Surat, besides that of striking 

terror in the hearts of the Moghuls, was the desire to amass 

more wealth from this rich town. But, from the fact, 

that the author compares him with Ahriman or Satan, 

one may say that the author meant to say about him something 

stronger than that he was rich. In that case, we may take the word 

ghani in the sense of " plunderer " or in the sense of " an enemy." 

Steingass does not give the word ghani in that sense but gives the 

word ghanim ( ^>ajIc ) which seems to have been derived from 

ghani in that sense. He says for ghanim, " plunder, spoil, the 
acquisition of a thing without toil and trouble, taker of spoil, 
plunderer, enemy, foe, adversary. "^*^ So, taking into consideration 
the facts of the sack of Surat as given by various writers, one can 
easily understand why the author of the Qisseh speaks of him as 
" the plunderer." Shivaji' s fame as a great fighter who plundered 
the territories of Aurangzeb seems to have travelled even to Persia. 
In an offensive letter written by Shah Abbas II to Aurangzeb in 
1664, we read : "I learn that most of the zamindars of India are 
in rebellion because their ruler is weak, incompetent and without 
resources. The chief of them is the impious kafir Shiva, who had 
long lived in such obscurity that none knew of his name ; but now 
taking advantage of your lack of means and retreat of your 
troops, he has made himself visible like the peak of a mountain, 
seized many forts, slain or captured many of your soldiers, 
occupied much of that country, plundered and wasted many of 
your ports, cities and villages, and finally wants to come to grips 
with you." 241 

^'* Persian English Dictionary, p. 897, col. 1, 

2*» Ibid Dictionary, p. 897, col. 1. 

*" Sarkar's Aurangzeb, Vol. Ill, p. 126. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 189 

The English had factories in Surat, Rajpur, Karwar and Hiibli. 

Shivaji, at one time or another, sacked all these 

• Shivaji and places— Surat in 1664 and 1670, Rajpur in 1661, 

iheEmjlish. Karwar in 1665 and Hubli in 1673. So, during 

all these sacks, the English had to suffer, 
more or less, at the hands of Shivaji. The Bombay factory 
was first established in 1668, seven years after that island passed 
into the hands of the English (1661) from the Portuguese as a 
part of the dowry of Charles II's marriage with Catherine. The 
first President of the Bombay factory was Sir George Oxenden who 
had made a bold stand against Shivaji in his sack of Surat of 1664. 
Shivaji had generally tried to be on good terms with the English, 
especially because he expected some help from them in his fight 
with the Sidees of Janjira. Though the whole of the Salsette 
belonged to the Portuguese, Kurla was in his hands. So, if he 
were not on good terms with the English, they might allow his 
Abyssinian foes to attack his possession of Kurla through their 
territories. Therefore he acted with them in a conciliatory 
way. As he was at first without a naval fleet, he acted in a 
conciliatory way with the Dutch, the French and the Portuguese 
also. Sir George Oxenden was the President and Governor of the 
Surat factory from 1663 to 1669. Then Gerald Aungier was the 
President at Surat from 1669 to 1677. Aungier came to Bombay 
in 1671 and returned to Surat in 1675. When the Governor resided 
in Surat, the Bombay Factory was under a Deputy Governor. 

Now, we come to the Sack of Surat. There were two Sacks 

of Surat by Shivaji. So, the question is, which of 

these two is referred to by the Qisseh. I will, 

sl^ZymJi. ^t fi'-^t' describe in brief the two sacks and then 

proceed to determine which of these two, is referred 

to by the Qisseh. Before proceeding further, I 

may say here, that this city was, ere this, attcked and sacked by 

Aurangzeb's own rebel brother Morad, who is spoken of as *' the 

black sheep of the Imperial family."-"*^ In November 1658, he had 

«ent his eunuch general Shahbaz Khan at the head of 6,000 horse 

''to levy contribution from the rich part of Surat,"-"*^ whose rich 

merchants had deposited their money for safety in the fort. In the 

'*2 Sarkar's Aurangzeb, I, p. 318. ^is /^^^ p 323. 

190 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

end, Haji Muhammad Zahid and Pirji Borah, two rich merchants 
of the city, arranged " on behalf of the entire mercantile community 
of Surat " to lend to Murad who was hard pressed with want of 
money 5 lakhs of rupees on Morad passing a bond for the repayment 
of that amount.^^* 

Shivaji thought of an offensive against the Moghul Emperor 
Aurangzeb who had got Poona seized by his 
general Shayasta Khan. Surprise was one of the 
The first Sack chief characteristics of Shivaji. So, he wanted 
of Surat in IQQ4:. to surprise Surat, the chief emporium of trade in 
the dominions of Aurangzeb. Again, his chief 
object was to amass wealth by plundering this rich city. In 
order to avoid suspicion, he collected his army into divisions, in 
two distant parts of the country — one at Kalyan and another at 
Dandeh Eajpur.^"^^ He further gave out that this prepara- 
tion was to fight the Portuguese at Chaul and Bassein and the 
Siddhi (the Abyssinian chief) of Janjira. It is said that, he had, at 
first, sent as a spy his scout Balurji Naik, to examine the situation 
there. Robert Orme says ^^^ that it was said that he himself had 
gone to Surat in disguise and remained in it three days, picking up 
intelligence and marking the opulent houses. His army for the 
sack consisted of 10,000 Mawalis, principally led by two leaders,. 
Moropant Pingle and Prataprao Guzar. Our Qisseh' s statement 
that the army consisted of 50,000 men, seems to be the result of 
what was heard in the midst of a general alarm. Our author 
Jamshed Kaikobad may have heard this number among the alarm- 
ing news of the times. The above two leaders were the two gir-o- 
dars referred to by Jamshed Kaikobad in his Qisseh. 

It was in the morning of 5th January 1664, that the people 
of Surat at first heard the news that Shivaji's army had arrived 
at Gandevi about 28 miles south of Surat. They began leaving 
the city for the villages on the other side of the river. Inayat Khan, 

2*^ Ibid; p. 325. 

^*^ Orme gives the places as Chaul and Bassein. Chaul is very close 
to Dandeh- Raj pur and Bassein very close to Kalyan. Historical Fragments- 
of the Moghul Empire by R. Orme, p. 12. But these places were named by 
Shivaji as the places of attack. 

^*^ Historical Fragments of the Moghul Empire (1805) p. 12. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 191 

the governor of the city, fled into the fort, leaving the people to 
themselves to do what they liked for their safety. ** Rich men 

found shelter in the fort by bribing its commandant.''"^ A 

population composed mostly of money-loving traders, poor artisans 
punctilious fire-worshippers and tender-souled Jains, cannot 
readily take to war even in self-defence. The richest merchants, 
though owning millions of Rupees, had not the sense to hire 
guards for the protection of their wealth, though they might 
have done so at only a twentieth part of what they were soon 
to lose through pillage." ^^^ 

In the midst of general fight and flight among the citizens, 
the members of the English and the Dutch factories stood daringly 
to their guns. They could have retired to their ships at Swally. 
But, instead of doing so, they resolved to stand in self-defence at 
their own factories. Sir George Oxenden, the English President 
sent for the sailors of his ships and with about 150 Englishmen and 
60 peons defended his factory. To give confidence, at least to the 
people of the street round his factory, he marched with his small 
army headed by a band of drums and trumpets, through the 
streets to show that he was prepared to defend his factory. His 
example and that of the Dutch factor " heartened a body of 
Turkish and Armenian merchants to defend their property in 
their serai close to the English factory."^'^^ 

Shivaji, not receiving a reply to his previous night's message to 
the Governor, began looting. The following description of the sack 
by Prof. Sarkar supports all that is said in Jamshed's Qisseh 
about the terror of the sack. " A body of Shivaji's musketeers 
was set to play upon the castle, with no expectation to take 
it, but to keep in and frighten the governor and the rest that 
got in, as also (to prevent) the soldiers of the castle from 
sallying out upon them whilst the others plundered and fired (the 
houses). The garrison kept up a constant fire, but the fort-guns 
inflicted more damage on the town than on the assailants.. 
Throughout Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, this 
work of devastation was continued, every day new fires being. 

^*' The city had, as it were, two hdkams or governoi-s, one who commanded, 
the fort and the other a civil governor. ^^^ Sarkar's Shivaji, pp. 99- 100. 
2" Ibid, p. 102. 

192 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

raised, so that thousands of houses were consumed to ashes and 
"two-thirds of the town destroyed. As the Enghsh chaplain wrote 
* Thursday and Friday nights were the most terrible nights for firej^^ 
the fire turned the night into day, as before the smoke in the day- 
time had turned day into night, rising so thick that it darkened 
the sun hke a great cloud'." ^^^ The house of Baharji Borah, who 
was "then reputed the richest merchant in the world," and who 
was one of the three rich persons sent for by Shivaji before he 
commenced the pillage, was with all its property estimated to 
value Rs. 80 lakhs. It was plundered and then was set on fire. 

According to Robert Orme, Shivaji collected a rich booty. " The 
booty he collected in treasure, jewels and precious commodities, 
was estimated at a million sterling" ^^^ (i.e., about a Crore of 
rupees). The pillage lasted four days and nights. Prof. Sarkar says, 
that Shivaji "shrank from no cruelty to extort money as quickly 
as possible. "2^^ He quotes an English chaplain, who said : " His 
desire for money is so great that he spares no barbarous cruelty to 
extort confessions from his prisoners, whips them most cruelly 
threatens death and often executes it if they do not produce so 
much as he thinks they may or desire they should ; — at least 
cuts off one hand, sometimes both."^^^ 

Krishnaji Anant, a sahhasad at the court of Shivaji's second 
son Rajaram, who wrote a life of Shivaji at the express desire of 
Rajaram, thus speaks of the sack : " The people of Surat were 
taken unawares. The forces entered the long streets of shops 

near the gate of Surat The king's forces then laid siege to 

merchants' houses and took aw;ay from them gold, silver, pearls, 
diamonds, rubies and other precious stones and jewels and gold 
coins such as Houes^^* and Mohurs, and put them into their bags. 
They did not touch cloth, copper utensils and other insignificant 

2^» Sarkar's Shivaji, p. 103. 

2^^ Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire, pp. 12-13. 

252 Sarkar's Shivaji, p. 106. ^sa garkar's Shivaji, p. 106. 

25* A gold coin ; the exact value of this coin cannot now be ascertained 
as there were various kinds of it and it is not knoA\Ti what particular kind 
is meant. (The Life and Exploits of Shivaji, translated into Enghsh from 
an unpublished Manuscript by Jagannath Lakshuman Mankar (1886); 2nd 
Ed., p. 24). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 193' 

articles. "2^^ The booty according to this author came to *' 5 crores 
of Hones and 4,000 horses."^^^ The panic kept off people who bad 
run away from returning to Surat even after Shivaji's departure. 
It was on the approach of the Imperial army of Aurangzeb on 
the 17th to Surat that the people had some confidence and 
returned to the city. Aurangzeb, hearing of the sufferings of the 
people, excused for one year the custom duties of all nierrliants 
of Surat. 

It is said that it was the courage and bravery of the English 
and Dutch factories that saved the situation from being still worse. 
Oxenden, the English President,^^^ raised his Enghsh factory in the 
estimation of Aurangzeb and he also won the praise and gratitude 
of the people. Aurangzeb appreciated the help of the English 
and Dutch factories by ordering that they may thereafter pay 
1 per cent, less on the normal import duties. ^^^ 

Some time after this Sack of Surat, Shivaji assumed the title- 

of a Raja and, as said above, built a fleet of his own, 

Shivaji's Se- wherewith he could exert some power in the sea and 
cond Sack of ^ r ^i m • t • 

Surat. exact pass-port money trom the pilgrmis ships going 

to Mecca, as the Portuguese did before that time. 

Aurangzeb, as a bigoted monarch, did not like this impost upon his 

Mahomedan pilgrims, and so, sent his general Jai Singh to fight 

with Shivaji. After some fight Shivaji made peace and the treaty 

of Purandhar was signed. He then, thus becoming friendly mth the 

Moghul Emperor, went to Agra on the promise of being well 

received and honoured, but was dissatisfied at the treatment 

given him. This dissatisfaction being openly expressed led to his 

being imprisoned. He fled practising a strategem and returned 

to Raighar in December 1666 and renewed hostilities with the 

Emperor. Aurangzeb ordered his officers to fight with him but 

the dissensions among the Moghal ofiicers themselves could not 

lead to any success against Shivaji. Again, there were difficulties 

in the North which distracted the attention of Aurangzeb. Shivaji, 

on his part, wanted some years of peace, to consolidate his power. 

So, all these circumstances led to a peace between Shivaji and 

255 Ibid, p. 63. "^^ Ibid, p. 64. "? jj^ jied and is buried in Surat. 
258 Sarkar's Shivaji, and his times, Ed. of 1919, pp. 117-118. 

194 ' Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Aurangzeb in March 1668. But this peace did not last long. 
Both parties suspected each other and war was renewed in 1670. 
The tide of success was in favour of Shivaji. He reconquered, 
one after another, all the forts which he had ceded to Aurangzeb 
under the treaty of Purandhar. Among these forts attacked by 
him, one was that of Mahuli about 50 miles on the north-east of 
Bombay ^^^ which fell in August 1670 A.C. ^eo The internal differ- 
ences and disagreements between the Moghul generals, especially 
between Dilir Khan and Prince Muazzan, the son whom Aurangzeb 
suspected of being in secret league with Shivaji and of aiming at 
the royal throne, made matters easy for Shivaji. 

At this time, Bahdur Khan, who was in sympathy with Dihr 
Khan, was the Subahdar of Guzarat. He heard that Shivaji 
was preparing for a second attack upon Surat. His proposed 
second sack 'was taken to be a more serious business than the 
first. The EngUsh factors wrote : " Shivaji marches now not 
(as) before as a thief, but in gross with an army of 30,000 men, 
conquering as he goes."^^^ On hearing of the report of the proposed 
attack, Bahdur Khan went to Surat in April 1670 with 5,000 men 
of cavalry for its defence. But Shivaji did not turn up at the time. 
He turned up in October and plundered Surat for the second time. 
The English factors, expecting that this was a more serious business, 
had sent down a large part of their goods to Swally Bunder where 
they had their ships. General Aungier, the then President at 
Suratj himself retired with his council to Swally. Between the 
first sack in 1664 and this second in 1670, Aurangzeb had built 
a wall for the protection of the city, but that defence could not 
stand against Shivaji's attacK, because, at that time, the Governor 
had only 300 men for its defence against the several thousands — 
some say it was 15,000 — of Shivaji. The attack came on the 3rd' 
of October 1670. " After a slight resistence the defenders fled to 
the fort, and the Marathas possessed themselves of the whole town 

259 j^Qj. an account of these forts and of the association of Manohardas 
with one of them, vide my paper " A Persian Inscription of the Mogal times 
on a stone found in the District Judge's Court at Thana." (Jour., B. B. R. 
A. S., Vol. XXIV, pp. 137-161.' Vide my Asiatic Papers, Part II, pp. 149-173). 

26a Takakhav's Life of Shivaji, p. 318. ^ei garkar's Shivaji, 2nd ed., 
p. 197. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh » 195 

except only the English, Dutch and French factories, the large 
new serai of the Persian and Turkish merchants and the Tartar 
Serai midway between the EngHsh and French houses, which was 
occupied by AbdullaKhan, ex-king of Kashgarh, just returned from 
a pilgrimage to Mecca. The French bought off the raiders by means 
of 'valuable presents'. The English factory, though it was an 
open house, was defended by Streynsham Master^^^ ^f^\\\^ 50 sailors, 
and the Marathas were received with such a hot fire from it that 

they lost several men The Marathas plundered the 

larger houses of the city at leisure, taking immense quantities of 
treasure, cloth and other valuable goods, and setting fire to several 
places, so that ' nearly half the town' was burnt to the ground ".^^^ 
Shivaji retired from Surat at noon on 5th October 1670 and while 
retiring sent a message to " the officers and chief merchants saying 
that if they did not pay him twelve lakhs of Rupees as yearly 
tribute, he would return the next year and burn down the 
remaining part of the town."^^* 

This second Sack was followed by something like a communist 
rising of the poor. ' ' The poor people of Surat fell to plundering 
what was left, in so much that there was not a house, great or small, 
excepting those which stood on their guard, which were not 
ransacked. Even the English sailors under S. Master took to 
plundering." ^^^ It is said that " Shivaji had carried off 66 lakhs 
of Rupees worth of booty from Surat, viz., cash, pearls and other 
articles worth 53 lakhs from the city itself and 13 lakhs worth 
from Nawal Sahu and Hari Sahu and a village near Surat." -^ 

But this was not the only loss to Surat. This sack gave a 
great blow to the trade of Surat. One of the richest men of Surat 
at that time, the son of Haji Said Beg, referred to in the account 
of the first sack, resolved that he would leave Surat for good and 
live at Bombay. The fear of sacks in future was, it seems, more 
terrible than the sacks themselves. Every few days, there was an 
alarm of a sack from the Mahrathas, and people began running 

^^^ For this personage vide mv paper " Bombay as seen by Dr. Edward 
Ives in the year 1754." (Jour., B^ B. R: A. S., Vol. XXII, pp. 273-97, vide 
my Asiatic Papers Part II, pp. 17-42). 

2«3 Sarkar's Shivaji, 2nd ed., pp. 198-200. 

=^«^ Ihid, pp. 201. 265 ii^id^ p 201. 

2«« Ihid^ p. 203. 


196 ' Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

away. Even the foreign factors packed up their goods for their 
ships at SuwaU. " Business was effectually scared away from 
Surat, and inland producers hesitated to send their goods to this, the* 
greatest emporium of Western India. For one month after the 
second sack, the town was in so great a confusion that there was 
neither governor nor Government, and almost every day was troubled 
by rumours of Shiva's coming there again." ^^7 But there was a 
special great alarm and scare on 12th October. Then, there were 
alarms at the end of November and 10th of December 1670. Then, 
two years after, in June 1672, in the victories of Moro Punt in the 
neighbouring Koli State of Ramnagar, there was again a scare 
because Moro Pant openly demanded a chauih^^ from Surat, 
threatening a visitation if the Governor refused payment (1670). 
Thereafter again, there were scares on the following occasions: 
February 1672. October 1672. September 1673. October 1674. 
December 1679. 

Now, the question is, which of these two sacks is referred to 

Which of the by the Qisseh of Rustam Manock: For several 

two Sacks is re- reasons, I think, that it is the first sack that is 

ferred to by our ' ' 

Qisseh ? referred to. Firstly, had it been the second sack. 

the applicants may have, at least, made some reference to the first 

sack of 1674, saying that they had to suffer the miseries of another 

sack within a short period of six years. Secondly, this second 

sack was not so sudden as the first. In the case of the first 

sack, the people came to know of Shivaji's march towards Surat. 

so late as when he arrived at Gandevi, about 28 miles distant. 

But in the case of the second sack, the matter was long talked 

of, though the sack itself was sudden, as Shivaji's attacks 

generally were. Agility was one of the chief characteristics of 

2«' Ibid, p. 203. 

268 " j^ (chout) was a permanent contribution of one-fourth of the revenue, 
and exempted the districts that agreed to it from plunder as long as it was 
regularly paid." (Elphinstone's History of India (1841) Vol. II, p. 485). 
" Chauth is an assessment equal to one-fourth of the original standard 
assessment, or generally to one-fourth of the actual Government collections 
demanded by the Marathas from the Mohammadan and Hindu princes of 
Hindustan, as the price of forbearing to ravage their countries. The 
Chauth was collected by the Marathas. through their own agents". (Wilson's 
Oriental Language Glossary of Terms, pp. 106-107.) 

Ttustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 197 

Shivaji which contributed to his success. The sack having been 
talked of some time before, the English and other factors had 
removed their valuable things from their factories at Surat to 
Suwali where they were near their ships. So, it seems that 
the Parsees of Surat must have been prepared for the second 
sack and they must have made provision in time for their own safety 
and the safety of their property. So, all the distress and misery 
referred to in the Qisseh were in the first sack. 

We read in the Qisseh, more than once, the word Zulmaneh 

( ^iJils ) as paid to Shivaji. We do not find 

Shivaji' s zul- the word either in Steingass's Dictionary or in 

mdneh. Wilson's Oriental Language Glossary of Terms. 

TheGrujarati translator translates the word as vero 
( ^^l ) ^^^ I.e. "tax, toll, impost." It seems to have come 
from the word zulm ( J^ ) oppression, and means " a ransom 

extorted by oppression." It seems from the lives of Shivaji by 
different writers and from other writings also, that those who pillaged 
cities or villages imposed a certain sum, a fine you may call it, upon 
a town or village. If the town or village wished to be saved from a 
general pillage with its accompanying afflictions, it paid the sum 
as a ransom. It seems that Rustam Manock had settled 
the sum of Rs. 10,000 with Shivaji or with one of his officers as a 
ransom for his community. From the Qisseh itself, it seems to have 
been a sum for the ransom of those who were taken prisoners by 
Shivaji. Bat these prisoners seem to have been intended as hostages 
for payment from the Parsee community. Shivaji is reported to 
have justified these sacks and plunders by saying to the Nawab 
of Surat in 1678 : " Your Emperor has forced me to keep an 
army for the defence of my people and country. That army must 
be paid by his subjects." ^^^ 

A question arises, as to where Rustam Manock was during 

the whole time of the sack which lasted for six 

jf^f^^^^M^^l d^ys ^ When there was this general pillage of 

during the the rich and the poor, how did he save himself, 

^ack? so as to be even able to give Rs. 10,000 

269 p^ 28 of the Ms. of Transliteration and Translation. 
"» Sarkar's Aurangzeb. Vol. IV, pp. 233-34. 

198 f Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

as a ransom to Shivaji for his people 1 I think, he may have 
saved himself in any one of the three following ways : 1. We 
saw above that some of the rich men of the city " found shelter' 
in the fort by bribing its commandant." ^^^ He was a rich and in- 
fluential man. So, he may have sought shelter in the fort. 2. He 
was the Broker of the English. So, he may have sought protection 
in their factory. 3. He may have defended himself, putting 
guards on his house. 

Out of these three ways, I think he resorted to the third or 
last way. My reasons for coming to this conclusion are the follow- 
ing : (a) As a rich man, he must have possessed a strong-built 
house, with strong gates and he may have protected that house 
with his own guards, a number of which rich men in those days 
generally kept, and with some additional guards engaged for the 
time. Again, I think that it is possible that the English factory, 
whose broker he was, may have helped him with some of their own 
soldiers to serve as additional guards on his gate. The presence of 
a few guards, even three or four, of the English Factory at the 
gate might have kept away from his premises Shivaji's soldiers, 
especially because Shivaji had made it known to the foreign factors 
at Surat that he had no quarrel with them, but had a quarrel only 
with the Moghal rulers. We read the following in the case of a 

rich merchant Haji Said Beg : " Haji Said Beg too had 

fled away to the fort, leaving his property without a defender. 
All the afternoon and night of Wednesday and till past the noon of 
Thursday, the Marathas continued to break open his doors and 

chests and carry ofl as much as they could But in the 

afternoon of Thursday, the brigands left it in a hurry, on being 
scared by a sortie, which the English had made into the street, 
to drive away a party of 25 Maratha horsemen who seemed intent 
on setting fire to another house in dangerous proximity to the 
Enghsh factory." ^72 gQ^ jf ^j^^ EngUsh factory defended the 
property of other merchants close by, it seems most likely that 
they may have helped their own broker, Kustam Manock. 

(b) Again, we learn from the Qisseh that his co-religionists went 
to him and implored his assistance for a ransom and that he gave 
a sum of Rs. 10,000 for their ransom. This shows that the place, 

"1 Sarkar's Shivaji, 1st ed. pp. 106-107. "2 garkar's Shivaji, p. 112. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 199 

where the petitioners went, must have been one where they could 
have a comparatively easy access. They could not have an easy 
•access to him at the English Factory guarded during the sack by 
English soldiers. They could not have had access to the fort of the 
Moghal commanders, where, under fright, the Governor had taken 
slielter^ leaving the poor subjects to their own plight. 

(c) Again, we must remember that though Shivaji had come 
t o Surat with a picked cavalry of 4,000 people, his attack was not 
like that of a battle. His object was nothing but loot. So, his 
band, having brigandage as their object, must have spread in small 
numbers in all parts of the city and its suburbs. Therefore, it 
may not have been very difficult for Rustam Manock with his 
guards, — his usual guards, increased perhaps for the time being, 
by some special guards, — to defend his house. 

(d) Again, it seems that Rustam Manock, though a rich and 
influential man, was not so extraordinarily rich as to draw the 
attention of Shivaji for being plundered. We find that, before 
looting the city on the 6th January 1664, he sent to the Moghal 
governor a message in writing, the previous night from his camp 
in a wadi about a quarter of a mile outside the Burhanpuri gate, 
that he (the Governor) and Haji Said Beg, Baha Borah, and Haji 
Qasim should see him at his camp to arrange terms, for the ransom 
of the city from plunder ; otherwise the whole city would be 
attacked with sword and fire. We do not find Rustam Manock's 
name among the rich persons sent for. So, he may not have been so 
rich as to draw the special attention of Shivaji for a special attack. 
Therefore, it seems probable, that Rustam Manock may have 
defended himself with his ordinary and a few extraordinary guards. 

According to the Qisseh, the Parsees complained of two officers 
who accompanied Shivajee. They are spoken 
The two offi. ^f ^g u ^ ^^j.„ ( )]d . J ). Gir dar 

cers of Shivaji P _ ^ i ^ 

who accompa- ( ; I •> j^ ) and gIr o bedar ( ;Idj^^ ),i-e., 
nied him in the .. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ,, ^^^ battle-cries.273 The qisseh 
sctcic , c. lyO-i. 

says : ^ I .> jJ^^ »>^ j ^ kJ^^*^ f** 

^'^ Steingass (pp. 1108 and 1109) gives the meaning as - the confused 
clamour or noise of combatants". Yide the words gir-dir and gir-u-beddr. 
The words are something Uke "stand and deUver", the clamour of the 

200 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

i.e., at the head of his army, there were two ^ gir o dars\ 
So, I think, we must take the meaning of the words to 
be persons who call out " Take {i.e., capture) and hold (i.e.* 
detain) persons", i.e., leaders. As to who they were, the qisseh 
speaks in the following couplet (c. 191) : 

i.e., " one was ' Ahtijiban ' and another Divyan. They were 
the enemies of the sect of Zoroastrians." Here it is not clear 
whether the words are common nouns or proper nouns. If they 
are common nouns, they may be taken as expressing the 
characteristics of the two persons who accompanied Shivaji as 
gir-o-dars. The first word ahu-jiban may be a word derived from 
ahu (P. jf I Pahl, ahu, Avesta ahiti, meaning filthiness, 
impurity), vice and jaib ( v,->Aa. ), the heart, i.e., one vicious 
from the very heart. The second word div yan may be from 
jj^ (Av. daeva) the devil, i.e., one who is of devilish nature. 
The Gajarati translator, in Jalbhoy's book, has translated 
the couplet as.'' rl Mi^i'v riiHi?f < <n€^^ct Ml<R{l ^i^Mi |^^«i ^ " ^^^ 
i.e., they are very unholy and ugly, (and are) the enemies of the 
Parsees. The translator of the Gujarati transliterated manuscript 
takes both the words as proper nouns. He translates : d "H^^xi 
^b^' <[H ^\^VM[ri a^M ^<wl?i' tlH t<l'^H bii< ^/' (c. 191). 
i.e.,- the name of one of them is Ahujiban and the name of the 
other is Devyan. But these names sound as very uncouth for 
Hindu names. So, if we at all take them as proper names, I think 
they are corruptions — the corruption arising from the mistake 
of the copyists. If so, what are the proper names of these two 
officers ? 

They may be Moropant Pingle and Prataprao Guzur, referred 
to by Mr. Takakhav.^^^ He says : " The expeditionary force 
consisted of 10,000 Mavahs,^^^ including such leaders of distinction 
as Moropant Pingle [the Peshwa or Prime Minister of Shivaji whose 
full name was Moro Trimbak Pingle], Prataprao Guzur, and several 
subordinate officers." Or, perhaps, they may be Mukaji Anandrao 

2'* ?ii XHl-^t I'll 1 *'l^«l by Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth, p. 106. 

2'=^ The Life of Shivaji Maharaj (1921), p. 237 

^'^'^ Mavalis, the people of the mountain valleys of Maval near Poona. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 201 

and Venkaji Datoo. We read in Shivaji's life by Mr. J. L. Mankar : 
" In the meantime Bahirji, a messenger from Surat, arrived 
•and said to the king : — ' If Surat be taken, immense wealth would 
be found.' ^77 The king then thought that as most of his army- 
was composed of hired mercenaries, they would not do the work 
as satisfactorily as required and that he had therefore rather go 
in person with his forces. Having formed this resolution, the king 
applauded Mukaji Anandrao, the foster son of Maharaj 
Shahaji and Venkaji Datto, a Brahmin, both of whom were renowned 
warriors and who had resigned the service of the Maharaja and come 
over to the king. He placed under them a body of 5,000 horse and 
taking with him as also Prataprao Sarnobat,^^^ other warriors, 
10,000 horsemen, 10,000 Shiledars,^^^ from 5 to 7 thousand chosen 
Mawalis, Sirkarkun Moropant Peishwa, Nilopant, Dhanajipant, 
Dattajipant and Bal Prabhu Chitnis, he started for Surat."^^ 

I think that it is very probable, the two named leaders of the 
Qisseh are the above Anandrao and Datto. The name Anandrao, 
when written in Persian characters is jlj jJUl . In this name 
the name proper is Anand ( tiJUT ) and Rao ( j); ) is 
honorific. Another corresponding ending is ji ( ^c^ )• So, 
it is possible, the name Anandji must have been miswritten and 
misread as Ahiij J ( ^^^^T )• As to the name Devyan, the 
first part Deva is the name proper. Now, the above Marathi 
name Datto of the second leader can be written in Persian 
characters as ^O . By a mistake of the copyist — and such 
mistakes are very common — the two nuktehs or dots over the second 
letter 't' ci> may have been misplaced below and so Datto 
(y^ ) became Div (^^ ). The last portions yan ^^ seems 

^" The Life and Exploits of Shivaji, translated into Enghsh from an 
unpublished Marathi Manuscript, by Jagannath Lakshman Mankar, 2nd ed. 
of 1886, p. 62. 

^'^ Sarnobat was the description of a higher military officer. " One 
Naik was appointed over ten MawaUs (the people from Mawal) ; one Havaldar 
over fifty persons ; one Jumledar over two or three Havaldars. Ten 
Jumledars formed one Hazari. . . . The Hazaris were headed by a 
Sarnobat (Ibid pp. 24-25). 

^'^ Shiledar is "a horseman who provides his own horse" (/6id, 
p.63,n. ). 28 /jj-^^ pp, 62-63. 

202 , Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

to have been added as a plural, perhaps, to express the plural 
form to signify their followers. The last part ban ( i^^ ) of 
the first name Ahujiban seems to have been yan ( v»;^ ), and 
by a mistaken change of the two nuktehs from below to above, 
seems to have been read ban. 

At the end of the section on Shivaji's sack of Surat, the Qisseh 
Shivaji and refers, as said above, to an episode in the ancient 
Afrasidb. Bus- History of Iran, which occurred in the reign of 
and Agreras cc. Minochehr (Manushchithra of the Avesta, Yasht 
219-250. ' * XIII, 131) and which is described by Firdousi.28i 
The Qisseh says that Rustam Manock was the Agreras and Shivaji 
the Afrasiab of the story. This Agreras is the Aghraeratha of 
the Avesta (Yt. XIII 131, Yt. IX 22, Yt. XIX 77282). At the 
end of the episode proper of Agreras, the author of the Qisseh 
refers to some statements of Firdousi (be goftash Firdousi-i 
niknam, c. 338). He quotes several lines (cc. 339-345). 

The fact of Shivaji's sack doing great harm to the Parsees 

Shivaji's Sack of Surat is attested, among other facts, by the 

amd the loss of f^^^ ^f their losing some communal documents 

Parsee Com- . . i n • i t • • i i t^ • * i i 

munal docu- 1^^ ^^^ general flight. It is said that King Akbar 

ments. had given a grant of about 100 bigahs of land 

to the Parsees of Surat for constructing their Tower of Silence28^. 

^^^ For the story in the Shah-namah of Firdousi to which the Qisseh 
refers, vide M. Mohl's Livre des Rois, vol. 1, p. 428. Small volume. Vol. 
I., pp. 337-42. Vullers' ed. I., pp. 263-65. Kutar Brothers' ed., Vol. II, 
pp. 53-54, Dastur Minochehr's Translation Vol. I. pp. 469-70. Warner 
Brothers' Translation, Vol. I, pp. 366-7. 

^®^ For Agreras, vide my Dictionary of Avestaic Proper Names, pp. 
7-10 and pp. 149-50. 

^®^ Vide the printed accounts of the Parsee Panchayet for Sam vat 1904 
(1849 A.C.) for a reference to this subject by the first Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, 
Bart., ia an appUcation made by him in Sam vat 1847 to the Secretary to 
Government. There are three Towers of Silence at present at Surat; (1) 
Nanabhoy Modi's, built in 1735 A.C. ; (2) Muncherji Seth's, built in 1771. 
(3) Edulji Seth's, built in 1828. Besides these, one, which is now all in ruins, 
was built under the leadership of Punjia Paya in 1663. Again the existence 
of three more is shown by the foundations now existing. It seems, from the 
above fact, of Akbar giving a grant of 100 bigahs of land for a Tower of Silence, 
that the oldest Tower of Silence of Surat, of the existence of which we have 
a documentary evidence, must have been built in or about 1573 when 
Akbar visited Surat. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 203 

The document giving the grant was lost during this Sack of Shivaji. 
So, the King of Ahmednagar who possessed Surat later on, passed 
•in 1752 a newjarman, confirming the first grant. ^* 

The Qisseh speaks of several persons having been killed in 

A Note m an Shivaji's Sack. We find the entry of one Parsi 

Old Dishapothi in a Disha-pothi285 of Naosari. It runs thus in 

about the death , i v ^ r , c. ^ ^nc.,* 

of a Parsi in the *he list ot names under Samvat 1726 ^^ ^Ict l^^^): 

Sack of Shivaji. '' ■:^<:-t^. (HI ^ii^icl.^l on, ^i^*^ ^lioii ^^ m, >lH^aHl 
i^ ani^l^ii. ?iciicti ^^b^^ H\^ <[>>i^{ ^^clHl " ^® i.e., "(Roz) 28, 
(mah) 12. Ba (i.e., Behedin or layman) Goshtash Ba. Chanji Rana 
Sheth. Given as pa {i.e., W^b or adopted son) on mother's 
side. (He) was killed at Surat in the army of Seva (Shivaji)." 
The Samvat year 1726 corresponds to 1670 A.C. So, this death 
took place during the second sack. 


ni. Rustam Manock's appointment as Broker of the English 


The Qisseh thus heads, as translated from the Persian, the 
„ subject of Rustam' s appointment as the broker of 
nock's first ap- the English Factory : "In the matter of the 
pointment as Englishman coming to the city of Surat in India 
and (Rustam Manock's) interview with him and 
his becoming his broker." Then the Qisseh says : " The Enghsh 
(Angrez) came to Surat from their country in splendour, with 
wealth, dinar and gold. They came in ship via the great Sea 

^** Vide for this document, the Parsee Piinchayet printed Account book 
of 1903 A.C. Samvat (1848 A.C). 

2*» Disha-pothi is a book(pothi) of the anniversary days (dishaor divas h 
of the dead. 

286 a><iii:j^l^ ilCHl'O (>t'R«l«< 'H'^iwrf'., tM'tl^'ll^ 3}*«t« |*nxw «»1MI»^NW i»^\ 
M^^ti> ^i^il {%<:^€''!:) On p. 242 col. 2 of this work we find a death with this note. 

M^i^ »i^l^ilaHia3< ^1^1 'il^lS^i. This is the record of a death at the hands of 
the Garassias, who were " a class of land-holders who enjoyed lands or 

maintain a sort of feudal authority over them By profession these 

people are plunderers " (Shapurji Edalji's Dictionary). 

204 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

to India with a large caravan (karvan, i.e., a fleet with a number 
of men). They came for noble trade as (lit. in the dress of) 
general merchants. Kustam Manock paid a visit to them.^ 
The EngHshmen (kolah posh, lit. the hat-wearers) were much; 
pleased with him. In a short time, there grew up reciprocal' 
regard for each other and they came to be of one thought and heart. 
Then, the English made the Seth (Rustam) their broker and 

entrusted to him all their affairs Eustam then procured 

for them a beautiful, healthy house on the banks of the river, 
belonging to a well known man Haji Hajaz Beg (j^j jLp^ ^a. la. 
c. 357) at Rs. 3,000 per year. The English factors spent their 
own money over it and made several changes and decorated it. 

Rustam Manock then went with the Englishman to the Court 
of Aurangzib to request favours or concessions for the English. 
The name of the Englishman is not given, but he is spoken of 
simply as a kolah-posh, i.e., }ia,t-weaieT and Angrez, i.e., 'Englishmaji. 
Before submitting the request, Rustam gave rich nazranch 
and presents both to the courtiers and to the King (Sultan). 
According to the Qisseh, Rustam thus placed before the Emperor 
the case of the English : " This man has come from the direction 
of the West to India for the purpose of commerce, but the Amirs 
(Courtiers) of the court of His Majesty do not admit him into the 
city with kindness. This Englishman is a very good man and he 
is very full of hopes to have royal protection. He submits a 
request, that, by the kindness of the King, there may be a place of 
shelter (or protection) for him in the city of Surat, so that he may 
bring there (i.e., at the place so given) his commerce and he may 
also have a store-house (or factory) there." Aurangzib accepted 
the request and ordered Asad Khan, who was the principal vazir 
before him, that a royal order (manshur-i shahi) may be given 
to the Englishman. The order was accordingly given. 

Facts gather- We gather, from this account of the Qisseh, the 
ed from the Qis- p n • j* j 

J about the foUowmg facts :- 
English ambas- 
sador's visit. 

1. Rustam Manock was appointed a broker by the English. 
The date is not given. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 205 

2. Rustam got a house for them at Rs. 3,000 per year. 

3. Rustam went with the English factor to Aurangzib's Court. 
The name of the Englishman is not given. 

4. Rustam Manock gave rich presents to the courtiers before- 
hand and so won them over to his request. 

5. Asad Khan was the Minister (Vazir) in the presence of 

6. The King, accepting the Englishman's request, ordered Asad 
Khan to issue permission for granting all trade facilities to the 

Jamshed Kaikobad has not been very careful and accurate in 
giving expression in his poem to what he wanted to 
O' h' ^^y about Rustam Manock's appointment as a 

amnt rather broker of the English factory at Surat. One may 
vague. perhaps be misled to infer from his writing, that 

Rustam Manock went to pay a visit to the very first 
English settlers at Surat and was appointed their broker. It 
gives no dates of Rustam' s appointment as the English Factory's 
broker and of his visit to the Court of Aurangzib. It does not give 
the name of the English factor with whom he went to Aurangzib's 
Court. The translation of the Qisseh, which Jalbhoy, has given 
is very faulty. The translator has taken much liberty. For exam- 
ple, the last couplet of the Section on the arrival of the 
English runs : 

^^T;^ ^dyj ^j) JUJI ^j^^ 
u'^ u^AC ^^1 I; 'yif.i\ y^ 

i.e.. The secret-knowing God made the fortune of the Enghsh 
brilliant in it [i.e., in the building rented for them by Rustam). 
But the translator has rendered this verse as follows : H^ ^i^.^H- 

MX^h^ (4cll. =^^ clHiH Q^^^l h\X\.^\\ ct'^Hl ^IH-Hl ^c\l. (p. 115). 

The Gujarati translation accompanying the transliteration, 
which I have referred to above, is more faithful than the translation 

206 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


in Jalbhoy's book. In the Persian Qisseh, there is nothing about 
Kustam Manock being the broker of the English from the beginning. 
The last part in the above translation, viz: "Even the broker of the 
English from the first day was Rustamji Manockji and the affairs 
of all the English were in his hands" is altogether an interpolation; 
and this seems to have misled Mr. Jalbhoy Seth to say in his book, 
that Kustam Manock was from the very first associated with the 
East India Company at Surat. He says : — 

5H X^ctH ^i%% >i^clKl ^^£? Il A'tl •^l^'jucl^aff/ ^Rl^ 4^1. clnt^ 5H 
^l<flni'Al5ilH -iH^lKl ^l^ ^b^i ^RHil b^<X[ <4cll, cl^l lUilv ^i&rii HMRHl 

h^^i< tJ. ^. t-^^oMi a^2i> hi{<i ^^i cini ci^'ii <Ri^ ^^aH ^i^fr iii'^ 
Mlcl ^U(4'l-^IH^ ^iV^l^inl t^ltHUHi »l^l 4ctl (p. 3). fl 

Translation. — This Rustam Manock was the Shroff of the 
English factory at Surat from the very beginning. He lent large 
sums of money to these factory -men and used to give convenience 
to the trade of the English people. The Mogal officers of Surat 
put hindrances in the trade of the English factory-people. To make 
proper arrangements for that, the head of the English factory and 
his shroff Rustam Manock went to Delhi to the Court of Emperor 
Aurangzebe in 1660. 

Most of these statements, though correct in general terms, 
are inaccurate in particulars. These inaccuracies are : (1) that 
Rustam Manock was not the broker, or, as Mr. Jalbhoy speaks of 
him, shroff from the very beginning of the establishment of the 
English factory at Surat. (2) His visit to Aurangzebe's Court was 
not in 1660. (3) Aurangzib's Court was not at Delhi during his 
and the English factor's visit. To properly understand the inac- 
curacies and determine the question of the date of his appoint- 
ment as broker and of his visit to the Court of Aurangzebe, it is 
essential to know a brief history of the early advent of the English 
into India and of the establishment of their East India Companies 
which were more than one. So, I will direct here the attention 
of my readers to (a) a brief history of the trade of the English with 
the Bombay Presidency and (b) to the History of the East India 

Rmtam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 207 

Companies given above (Section III). That brief account will 
help us in properly grasping the trend of some facts referred to in 
the Qisseh and to see, that (a) the first arrival of the English at 
Surat was long before Rustam Manock's time and (6) his visit to 
Aurangzebe's court was long after 1660 and (c) that Aurangzeb's 
court at the time was not at Delhi. 

We find from the above-written history of the English trade at 

Surat and of the East India Companies, that 

nock,^ hToker o/ I^^^tam Manock was appointed the broker of the 

(he second Com- second or New Company, known as the English East 

pany,—theEng- j^dia Company, which was founded in 1698-99, and 

lish East iTidia <• i /• n 

Company— and ^^^t ot the jirst Company, known as the London 

not the first, the East India Company, founded in 1600. At the time, 

Maljom^lt ^^^^^^^ fi^^^ Company was founded, the Surat 
factory was not established. It was established 12 
years later. Rustam Manock was not even born at the time of the 
formation of the first Company in 1600, or at the time of the esta- 
blishment in 1612. He was born in 1635. We saw above, that the 
broker of the first Company in 1678 was a Hindu, a Bania by caste. 
The brokers of the old London East India Company were Vittal 
and Keshav Parekh, who continued to be the old Company's brokers 
upto 1703,2^^ when they were seized and " barbarously 
tortured," till they paid three lakhs of rupees, by Itbar Khan, the 
Governor of Surat, because two ships, belonging to two Surat 
merchants Abdul Ghafur and Qasimbhai, were captured on 28th 
August 1703, on their way back from Mocha, and it was supposed 
that the European factories had some hand in the piracies, or, that 
they did not take sufficient measures, with their fleets, to keep off 
the pirates. The brokers of the English and French factories also 
were arrested, but they were soon released .^^ 

Mr. Bomanji B. PateP^^ gives 1660 as the time of Rustam 
Manock's visit to the Court of Aurangzib in the company of an 
English Factor, after his being appointed broker. Mr. Jalbhoy 
Seth, most probably following Mr. Patel, whose aid he acknowledges 
in his preface, gives the same date. They do not give the authority 
of their statement. In 1660, Rustam Manock was a mere youth of 

2" Sarkar's Aurangzib, Vol. V, p. 357. ^ss 75^-^ 289 jparsee Prakash I, 
p. 15. 

208 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

(1660-1635=) 25 years of age. A raw youth cannot be expected to 

go on sucli an important errand. So, the reference in the Qisseh 

must be taken as the reference to the first arrival, in about 1699, 

of the President and factors of the second Company, the English 

East India Company. We are supported in taking the event as 

that of the arrival of the President or chief factor of the second 

Company in 1699, by Bruce's Annals. John Bruce says : " While 

he (Sir Nicholas Waite) was President at Surat, Kustum, whom, 

from his first arrival, he had employed as broker, &c."^^^Thus, 

we see, that Eustum Manock was the broker of the new or second 

Company — the English East India Company. 

The Qisseh says that, at the time of the visit of Rustam 

Asad Khan Manock at the Court of Aurangzib in company 

in Aurangzib's with the Englishman, Asad Khan was the Prime 

R^sZm^s %'isU Minister (Vaziri Asad Khan budeh pish-gah c. 

cc. 383, 385. ' 383). His original name was Muhammad 

Ibrahim Qaramanlu. Asad Khan was his title. 

He was called Jamdat-ul-mulk Asad Khan. He was born in 

1625-26. He was given the title of Asad Khan by Shah Jahan 

in the 27th year of his reign, i.e., in about 1655. He became 

Auyangzib's Deputy vazir in 1670 and full vazir in 1676 and 

continued so till the death of Aurangzib.^^^ He died in 1716. 

According to Manucci, when Sir WiUiam Norris went in 1701 to 

Aurangzib, he saw him. We read : " After he had rested for 

some days he (Norris) paid a visit to the chief minister, named 

Asett Can (Asad Khan), secretary of the king and his counsellor, 

and prayed him to assist him in the business he had to bring 

before the court, giving him great presents in order to obtain his 

support." 292 Asad Khan promised support but to no effect and 

Norris had to leave disappointed. 

As to the city of their interview, the Qisseh says (c. 364) : 

TheCity where VJ>i^ J^ — ^) ji f-^^ ^'/^ 

Rustam Manoch ^ ^ i „ 

saw Aurangzib. \J>^ S ^J .3 JJ uC ^j I ^J <^ ^jy. 

29 Bruce's Annals of the East India Company, Vol. Ill, p. 595. 

^^^ Manucci's Storia do Mogor by Irvine, II p. 21, n. 1. Irvine's foot- 
notes contradict one another. In a foot-note, No. 1, on p. 300 of Vol. Ill, he 
gives the date of iiis being made a full Vazir as 1683-84. 

^'2 Irvine's Storia do Mogor by Manucci, III, p. 300. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 209 

i.e., Rustam went in the company of the Englishman ; he rapidly 
took the way towards that king of Delhi. 

This couplet does not say that they went to Delhi but says 
that they went to the king of Delhi. But the translator of Jalbhoy's 
book (p. 116) has mistranslated the second line as "c^ Mi^^U^^i ^%>t 
6l««i^ ^i^ri ^'HH4^ ^l ^^r/rii RA121 iiC'^ 3Wi." i.e., He went to Delhi 
with the kolah posh Englishman to have orders from that King. So 
Jalbhoy has been misled, by the faulty translation, to say, that 
Rustam went to Delhi (^t^ >nirl ^u«4't^ll^ aniV^l^M'd i-V^'^^i ^Ri 
^cli. p. 3). Mr. Ruttonji Wacha^^s, a^^j jVjj. Bomanji B. PateF^^ also 
make the same mistake. But we saw above in our account of 
Aurangzib, that he left Delhi in 1683, and, though he died in 1707, 
he never returned to Delhi. So, the visit in 1701 was not at Delhi. 

The Qisseh does not name the Englishman who went to 

^, , Aurangzib's court with Rustam Manock. He 

The unnamed *= 

Englishman of simply speaks of him as the kolah-ppsh (cc. 372 

me Qisseh. 384) and as the Angrez (cc. 364, 373, 376, 380- 

386,391). But, as we saw above, it was with Sir William Norris 
that Rustam had gone to Aurangzib. The mention of Rus- 
tom's name, as we will see later on, by Bruce in his Annal, 
describing Norris's embassy, shows that Rustam had accom- 
panied Norris. 

What we read in the Qisseh is, that Aurangzib ordered Asad 

Khan to give the English a forman. But in those 

The arrival ^mes, a long time generally passed between the 

of the Farmdn issue of the Emperor's Order and the issue of 

later on. ^ regular firman. In this case, we learn, not 

from the Qisseh, but from other sources, 

that there was a long delay. It seems that, when Aurangzib 

ordered a firman for the President, Sir Nicholas Waite, one 

of the conditions was, that the Enghsh were to undertake to 

protect with their fleet, the Mogul ships, especially the pilgrim 

ships that went to Jeddah. Sir Nicholas Waite seems to have 

undertaken the responsibility, but the • Ambassador, when he 

later on, went to Aurangzib repudiated it, because it was too 

great a responsibility. The Indi an seas were infested not only 

2«3 ^o^fcj^ii <x viit p. 429. ''* Parsee Prakash I, p. 23. 

210 f Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

with English pirates, against whom they can promise protection, 
but also with Portuguese, Dutch and other pirates. So, Sir 
William Norris's repudiation led to delay in the issue of the farman. 
I will say here a few words about the embassy of Sir William Norris 
to enable us to properly understand the solution. 

Sir WiUiam Norris left England in January 1698, arrived at 
Masalipatam on the East coast in September, and landed in state 
on 24th December 1698. He did not land at Surat, because, there, 
the old Company, the London East India Company, of which the 
new Company, the Enghsh East India Company, was a rival, was 
powerful, and, at the time of his arrival, no representative of the 
new company had as yet arrived to receive and help him. The 
proposal for his ambassadorship was made by the new company. ^^^ 
He sent a notice from Masalipatam to the Court of Aurangzib, 
giving information *' of his arrival in the capacity of Ambassador 
from the king of England, with the object of promoting trade and 
good relations ; and, in due course, he received intimation that the 
various permits and mandates had been readily granted by the 
Mogul, so that he and his train could travel safely and unhindered 
to the camp. The permits, however, were long in coming, and this 
delay was caused, not only by the great distance but also, so Sir 
William (Norris) suspected, by intrigues and bribery, conducted 
by the old Company's agents." ^^^ 

Waiting long, the Ambassador gave up the thought of going 
direct from Masalipatam to the Court of the Mogul Emperor and 
proposed going via Surat, where, by this time, t.e., June 1699, the 
New Company had sent its officials. He was led to change his 
first plans and to take this course, because the new Company's 
local {i.e., Masalipatam) agents did not help him heartily to go 
to the Mogul Court from Masalipatam. He quarrelled with Pitt, 
the Local President of the New Company there, and left for Surat. 
After four months' passage, he arrived at Surat on 10th December 
1699. The Mogul's Men of War saluted him and he received 
the honour of a State entry into the city on the 26th of December. 

^®^ An article, entitled " The Embassy of Sir William Norris to Aurang- 
zib " by Mr. Harihar Das gives us a succinct account of Norris's Embassy, 
wherein we find Sir Nicholas Waite referred to as helping Norris. (Journal 
of Indian History, Vol. HI, p. 271 seq.) ^96 /^^^^ pp^ 272-273. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 211 

Sir Nicholas Waite had, by this time, come to Surat as the 
first President of the New Company. He at first helped Norris 
who left Surat for the Mogul's camp on 27th January 1700. During 
his stay at Surat, Norris was annoyed at the conduct of the 
officials of the Old East India Company, and, among them, of 
" Sir John Gayer, Governor of Bombay, the Old Company's 
chief representative in India, who was then in Surat." 

We thus see that Sir Nicholas Waite, who was the first 
President of the New Company and who had " from his first arrival 
at Surat", appointed Kustam Manock his broker, must have come 
to Surat in the first half of 1699. Thus the appointment of Kustam 
Manock as broker was also in 1699. 

Dates of Sir William Norris's visit to India as English 
Ambassador: — ^^^ 

The Formation of the New English East India Com- 
pany 1898 

The Company found recognition by the King after 

the customary visit from its founders 6th April 1699^^ 

Sir William Norris left England . . . January 1699 

Arrived at Masalipatam . . . . 25th September 1699 
He heard that the New Company's officials (Sir Nicholas 

Waite and others) had arrived at Surat . . June 1700 
Left Masalipatam for Surat after 11 months' 

stay August 1700 

Arrived at Surat . . . . . . 10th December 1700 

Made State Entry at Surat . . 26th December 1700 

Started from Surat for Aurangzib's Camp. 27th January 1701 
Arrived at Aurangzib's camp at Parnello (Panalla) 

which was beseiged . . . . . . . . April 1701 

Formally received by Aurangzib . . 28th April 1701 

Left Aurangzib's camp disappointed . .5th November 1701 

^®®a Ibid p. 274. 297 I gjyg tj^g dates mostly according to Harlhar Das 
(Journal of the Indian History, Vol. Ill, pp. 271-77). Sarkar (Aurangzeb, 
p. 355 seq.) gives 16 months for Norris's stay at Aurangzeb's camp — 27th 
January 1701 to 18th April 1702. ^''^ Vide above. 

212 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Detained at Barhanpore for two months at the direc- 
tion of Aurangzib who sent him there a letter and 
a sword for the English king. Left 

Barhanpm* about 12th February 1702 

Arrived at Surat after a month's march. . 12th March 1702 
Left Surat for homeward journey . . 5th May 1702 


Bruce's account of Rustam Manock*s visit of the Mogul Court 

in the comp .ny of the En? ish Ambassador and affairs after the 

return of Sir W. Norris' E nbassy. 

I will speak of the whole subject of Rustam Manock's 
visit to the Mogul Court under two heads : 
i. Rustam Manock's visit to the Mogul Court with 
the English Ambassador, 
ii. The state of affairs after the visit and after the 
return of the English Ambassador to England. 

I. Rustam Manock's visit of the Mogul Court with an 
English factor. 

Rustam Manock had, as a man of influence and as a broker 
of the Company, accompanied the Ambassador, Sir William Norris, 
to the Mogul Court. As John Bruce's Annals give us a good 
account of W. Norris 's Embassy, and as Bruce mentions several 
times Rustam Manock in his account, I summarize here, in brief, 
Bruce's account of the Embassy and his references to Rustam. I 
will, at first, speak of Sir Nicholas Waite, who had appointed 
Rustam Manock the broker of his Company, and who was much 
associated with the work of the Embassy to the Mogul Court. 

Nkholas Waite was appointed its first President at Surat 

by the new English Company. He was, at first, 

8ir Nicholas in the service of the old (London) East India 

ii'nt^ President C!ompany at Bantam in Java and was dismissed 

of the New Eng- from their service. On the occasion of the appoint- 

hsh Company. ment, he received the honour of Knighthood. 

His council was to have 5 members besides 

himself. His first assistant, to be known as " the Second 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 213 

ill Council " was not appointed at first, but the choice was to be 
made from Mr. Stanley or Mr. Annesley or Mr. Vaux, all of whom 
were dismissed by the old Company. The other members were 
Benjamin Mewse, Bonnel and Chidley Brooke. " Under them, were 
appointed three Merchants, three Factors and eighteen Writers. "^^ 
Sir Nicholas Waite reached Surat on the 19th January 1700. Mewse 
and Brooke had arrived on the 16th November 1699.^^ 

Sir William Norris was appointed Ambassador to the Mogul 
Court at the instance of this Company by the King. He was to 
"solicit and acquire privileges for the English Company or nation"^^ 
He was " vested with discretionary powers ", ^^^ \y^^^ ^]^g Company's 
general orders were conveyed to him through Sir Nicholas Waite.^^ 
The Company issued a general order " that their Presidents, or 
Consuls, alone, were entitled to grant passes to country vessels, 
or to make applications, through their Ambassador, to the Native 
Powers, for grants or privileges to the English Nation."^^. 

After landing at Surat, Sir Nicholas Waite began quarrelling 
with the factors of the old Company and directed the old Company's 
flag at Swally to be lowered. The Mogul Governor at Surat took 
this act as an interference in his and the Mogul Emperor's authority 
and ordered the flag to be re-hoisted at once. ^^^ " If the first 
act of Sir Nicholas Waite was violent, it was succeeded by one 
still more intemperate. "^^^ He " without waiting for the arrival 

of Sir William Norris at the Court of the Mogul addressed 

at once a letter to the Mogul, accused the London Company 

of being sharers and abettors of the piracies and ' of being 

thieves and confederates with the pirates " ^^^. He, declaring 
himself as President of the English Company and Consul for the 
English nation, represented, that " he was accompanied with a 
squadron of four men of war, sent by the KLing of Ei^land, 
to be employed, under his directions, in capturing and punisliing 
the pirates, and obliging them to make restitution of the vessels and 
property which they had taken from the Mogul's subjects."^^. 

^®® John Bruce's Annals of the Honorable East India Company from the 

Establishment to the Union of the London and Enghsh East 

India Companies (1810), Vol. Ill, p. 287. «°° Ibid, p. 334. ^" Ibid, p. 325. 
^''' Ibid. 3»3 Ibid. 3»* Ibid, p. 327. «»^ Ibid, p. 336. 3°'' Ibid, p. 337 
2"' Ibid. 3o« Ibid. 

214 ' Rustam Manock and the Persian QisseJi 

Bruce gives some other instances of Sir Nicholas Waite's 
violent temper and conduct : — Sir William Norris landed with 
Mr. Norris, the Secretary, at Maslipatam as Ambassador on 25th 
September 1699 and wrote to Sir Nicholas Waite at Surat asking 
for " copies of all Phirmaunds (farmans), or privileges, which had 
been granted to the English. "^^^ While describing events of 1700-01, 
Bruce says of Sir N. Waite : " Whatever merit may be assigned to 
this Agent of the English Company for his zeal, it was chance, not 
prudence, that prevented his bringing ruin on himself, and on his 
opponents. "^^^ Bruce, proceeding further, says that Sir N . Waite hired 
a house, on which he hoisted the English king's flag, to get permission 
for which he had to give a large present to the king.^^^ This seems 
to be the house, which, according to the Qisseh, Bust am Manock 
procured for the Company, at the rent of Rs. 3,000 per year. The 
fact of Sir N. Waite's hoisting the English King's flag upon it ex- 
plains why he had to secure, as said by the Qisseh, a palatial building 
at such a high rent. When he wanted to hoist the King's flag, the 
house must be worthy of the name of the British king. Then, 
Sir Nicholas Waite's misrepresentations at the Mogul Court led 
to restrictions on the liberty of the servants of the old Company. 
There arose, therefore, correspondence between both, the President 
of the old Company at Surat and Sir N. Waite, each accusing the 
other. Both parties now and then bribed the Mogul Governor of 
Surat. At length, both requested Sir John Gayer, the Governor 
of Bombay, to go to Surat to settle the dispute.^^^ The main point 
of dispute with the Mogul Governor at Surat was the question of 
damages, about Rs. 80 lacs, for a merchant ship of Hassan Ammed 
on its having been captured by English pirates in 1688. In 
November 1710, Sir John Gayer appeared at Surat. The 
Mogul Governor demanded from Sir N. Waite, that he may 
.guaraiii}ee that no damage was done to the merchants' vessels 
by the ships of the old Company. Waite refused to do so, unless 
the Mogul G-overnor undertook to stop the old Company from 
trading. Under these circumstances of dispute between the agents 
of the two companies, the Mogul Governor of Surat seized the 
Jetters that had passed between Colt and Gayer. 

»o» lUd, p 344 "0 ij^i^^ p^ 37Q^ 311 75^-^, p^ 370. 312 j^^-^, p^ 372. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 215 

While these disputes were going on, Sir William .Nom^, the 
Ambassador, who had landed at Maslipatam and 

NorrisaJAmtaT- ^^^ *^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ *^®^® *^ ^^^ ^^^"^ Emper- 
sador. or's camp as Ambassador but had failed, came to 

Surat in December 1700. He was as intemperate 

as Waite. On coming to Surat, he got the British Union flag 

dismounted from the old London Company's ship. Sir J. Gayer 

got it hoisted again. By this time, news came from England that 

the old Company's claims were considered and that it was to be 

continued as a Corporation. This news set up the spirit of the 

officers of the old Company, to the effect that, at least, both the 

Companies were ' ' on a state of equality. It was to retrieve the 

affairs of the English Company, shaken by this event, that Sir 

William Norris, at the great expense of a thousand gold mohurs 

to the Governor, five hundred to his son, and three hundred to 

two of his principal officers, obtained permission to make his public 

entry into Surat*."^^^ Sir William Norris and Sir Nicholas Waite 

continued taking unworthy proceedings against the officers of the 

old London Company and went to the extent of imprisoning some 

of the officers and of getting Sir John Gayer and the members 

of his Council confined by the Mogul Governor.^^"^ A short time 

after. Sir N. Waite was reprimanded by his Court of Directors for 

his conduct as Consul for having removed the old London 

Company's flag from their factory at Swally.^^^ Then " Sir 

Nicholas Waite, without authority from Sir William Norris 

addressed a letter, in his Consular character, to the Mogul, 

requesting, as the London Company were to be dissolved, that a 

Phirmaund with the same privileges which had been granted to 

them might be conferred on the English Company. "^^^ Among 

the various privileges which he asked, were included ''liberty 

of trade, and to settle factories to any ports in the Mogul's domii^ons; 

to have free ingress and egress for himself and Council, without 

search; — to have license to hire or build a house and warehouses. 

This statement of Bruce confirms all that we read in the Qisseh. 

The phirmaund, referred to by Bruce, as asked for by Waite, 

seems to be the farman, referred to in the Qisseh, as asked by the 

English Factory through Rustam Manock. 

3^3 Ibid, p. 375. 3" Ibid, pp. 378-79. ^'' Ibid, pp. 386-387. 
'^« Ibid, pp. 396-397. 31' Ibid, p. 397. 

216 » Rusiawi Manock and the Persian Qisseli 

Sir N. Waite had sent letters to Sir W. Norris at Masalipatam 
" by daily hircarraiis "^^^ saying that he was making preparations 
at Surat for his reception.^^^ 

Sir W. Norris left Muslipatam on 23rd August 1700 and 

arrived at Swally near Surat on 10th December 

Sir W. Norris' s l^OO. Sir N. Waite had offered to give Rs. 10,000 

arrival at Surat. to Sir W. Norris and " credit for a lac and a half,. 

which he had borrowed, as the stock in hand was 

exhausted by the investment" (p. 402). Sir W. Norris left Surat 

for the Mogul Emperor's Court on 20th January 1701 "with a 

retinue of sixty Europeans and three hundred Natives." He 

arrived at Kokely 66 kos from Surat on 8th February, reached 

Bancolee on 14th February where he was informed by Sir N. Waite 

that Sir John and the London Company's servants had been seized 

by the Mogul officers. He arrived at Gelgawn near Aurangabad 

on 19th February, at Damondavee on the 21st February, Brampore 

on 3rd March and at Parnella, the seat of Aurangzib's camp, on 

7th April 1701 (pp. 405-6). 

In one of his letters to the Court of Directors at home, Sir- 
N. Waite refers to his house at Surat and says that " the house 
which he had hired, as a Factory, was commodious, and situated 
nearer to the Custom-house, than that of the London Company. "^-^ 
This seems to be the house, which according to the Qisseh, Rustam 
had rented for the English factory, at Rs. 3,000 per year. 

318 'i^ 5 ^^ har-kara, (of all work, an outdoor servant employed 

to go on errands messenger, courier" (Steingass). The word has 

latterly become hal-karah, Parsi-Gujarathi. \§eiil^, I think originally 
it is Avesta han-kara from han, 53^ Gr. Sym, syn, together with, and 
kara efj]^, work. The word would mean " one who makes all joined toge- 
ther." King Kavi Husrava (Kaikhosru) is spoken of as han-kerena i.e., 
"one ^ho made all together into one ". This seems to be a reference 
to the establishment of a Postal Department. A har-kareh (properly 
speaking, han-kareh), a messenger, a postman, being one who brings? 
distant places into a closer contact. Cyrus, who is spoken of by some, as 
being the same as Kai Khusru, is known to have established the system of 
couriers, or a kind of postal department in his dominions. His postmen 
were these har-karehs or han-karehs. The letter ' n ' caft be read in PahlavL 
as *r'. Hence ' hankareh' has become har-kareh. 

"» Bruce's Annals III, p. 401. ^^^ Ihid, p. 407. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 217 

There arose, at times, some differences between the Ambas- 
sador Sir W. Norris and the Consul Sir N. Waite, because the latter 
* wished that Sir W. Norris, when at the Court of the Mogul, may use 
all his influence against Sir John Gayer and his officers who were 
imprisoned, but Sir W. Norris did not like to be unreasonable. 
Again, Sir N. Waite hesitated to advance indefinitely for the 
expenses of the embassy, money which had, in a short time, amount- 
ed to Rs. 3,55,179. 

Sir W. Norris went in a procession to see the Emperor on 
28th April 1701. By this time, Sir Nicholas Waite had created 
a. bad impression about him at home. The Directors of his English 
Company " disapproved of the intemperence of &ir Nicholas 
Waite, in his interferences with the Governor of Surat, which had 
augmented the oppressions Sir John Gayer and President Colt 
had experienced, without serving any useful purpose. "^^^ 

We learn from Bruce 's Annals^22 ^j^g^^ gjj. WiUiam Norris, whom 
Places touch- Rustam Manock had accompanied passed through 

ed by Rustam ^^^ following places after leaving Surat on the 
Manock on his ^ ^ '^ 

way with the 26th January 1701 : 
Ambassador to 
the Mogul Court. 

Arrived at — 

1. Kokely, 66 miles from Surat, on 8th February 1701. 

2. Bencolee 14th February. 

3. Gelgawn near Aurangabad 19th February. 

4. Damondavee 21st February. 

5. Brampore 3rd March. 

6. Parnella, the Camp of Aurangzeb, 7th April. 

The date of the Embassy to the Court of Aurangzeb comes 

The date of to, as we saw above,*about nOl^^^^.C. The author 

ihe visitofRus. f ^^^^ -^ j^Q ^g^^s (,£ aU the events. 

iam and the • i i ^nnrv \k 

Ambassador to Other later writers give the date as IbbO. Mr. 

the Mogul Court. Ratanji Framji Wacha gives the date of Rustam 
ParZ Siter^ Manock's visit to the Mogul Court as 1029 



Ibid, p. 446. ^"2 Vol. Ill, p. 404 ei seq 
^•oiti;iltHi^l^(1874), p. 429. 

218 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh i 

Yazdajardi, i.e., 1660 A.C. Bomanji B. Patel follows suit 
and gives the same year.^^* Jalbhoy Seth, Rustam Manock's- 
descendant, also gives the same date,^^^ following Mr. B. B. Patel,. 
whose help he acknowledges. But all seem to err. Rustam 
died in 1721 aged 86. So, the event of the visit as given 
by these three Parsi writers, viz., 1660, must be taken as having 
occurred 61 years before his death, when he was aged only 25. 
The date is erroneous, because the event occurred late in his life, 
after the sack of Surat and after Aurangzeb imposed the Jaziyeh 
tax as described in the Qisseh. Again, the age of 25 is too young 
for Rustam to have acquired all the necessary influence at Surat 
to be appointed a broker and to go as an influential personage,, 
with the EngUsh envoy to the Mogul Court. ^^^ 

Sir William Norris's Embassy at Aurangzib's Court failed,. 

D . ^y because various reasons interfered in the complete 

Reasons for the ^ 

failure of Nor- success of the Embassy, though the Ambassador 
ris's Embassy. stayed long and spent a good deal of money on 
the upkeep of his camp and on presents, properly speaking bribes, 
to the Mogul officers. The principal point of failure was the insist- 
ence on the part of the Emperor that the Ambassador should give- 
a guarantee for the safety at sea of Pilgrims' and Merchants' 
vessels. So the Ambassador left the Mogul Court at Panella on 5th 
November 1701. The various factories expressed their displeasure 
at the failure of the Embassy in receiving proper /armai^s. Among 
the faults of the Ambassador, one was said to be his disrespect to 
Asad Khan, the Prime Minister (vazir) at Burhanpore, where he 
did not pay the customary visit to him. Some time before the Am- 
bassador's departure, ''the Mogul's Ministers . . . sent by Rustum 
the broker, the obligation required by the Emperor, for the 
Ambassador's signature, which he refused, on the principle that, if 
granted, it would bring an incalculable demand on the EngUsh 
Company which must ruin their affairs .^^sa 

"* Parsee Prakash I, p. 23. 

»26 ^is \>iH€lrl<tl q'^U^CHl (Genealogy of the Seth Family) p. 3. 

^^^^ Bruce's Annals, Vol. Ill, pp. 468-9. 

Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 219 

The Ambassador, while returning, was stopped after three days' 

march, on the ground that he had left without 
on ^ Ms ^ITturn ^'^^ Emperor's dusticks^^^ or passes, those that 
journey. he had already with him" being those of 

inferior officers. He was asked to wait for two 
days, but, at the end of the period, not hearing from the 
Court, he proceeded further and arrived at Burhanpore on 14th 
November 1701 and left it on 22nd November. But he was 
shortly compelled to return to Burhanpore. On 28th November, 
he learnt " that orders had been sent to Surat, for the seizure of 
the property of the old London Company and the persons of 
their servants" ^^7, Qn 2nd December, " he was informed, that, at 
the recommendation of Gazedee Khan (the Mogul's Chief General) 
the Phirmaunds would be granted, and a demand was made of a 
sum of money, for the intercession of this officer." ^^^ On the dth 
February 1702, he was informed by Gazedee Khan, " that he had 
received a letter and sword from the Emperor, for the King of 
England, with a promise, that the Phirmaunds should be sent in 
a short time."^^^ He left Burhanpore for Surat on 5th February 
1702. In connection with this matter, we read as follows : — 
" Rustum, the broker, was detained by the Emperor's orders, 

but was directed by the Ambassador, not to 
temT"^ te ^ign any obligation, or give any further sums of 
Mogul Court. money, on account of the Embassy. Sir William 

Norris, at this time, promised to Gazedee Khan, 
that should the Phirmaunds be granted (besides the two 
thousand three hundred gold mohurs, which he had 
actually paid to him) he should be farther remunerated 
with a lack and a half, and his brother, with twenty thousand 
rupees." ^^9^ The mention of Rustam's name several times by 
; Bruce in the account of Norris's embassy to the Mogul Court, 
' clearly shows that the unnamed kolah posh or Angrez of the 
Persian Qisseh, in whose company Rustam Manock went to the 

326 ^Si^^^ dastak, lit. "a little hand"; a pass, passport, per- 
mission (Steingass). I think the word may be a corruption or contractioa 

of dastkhat ( ki^*^ »> ) handwriting, signature. 

3" Bruce's Annals, III, p. 471. ^'' Ibid, p. 471. ''' Ibid, p. 471, 
^''a Ibid, pp. 471-72. 

220 Rustani Manock and the Persian QisseJi 

Mogul Court was Sir William Norris. The detention of Rustam 
Manock by the Emperor shows that he was held to be a prominent 
member of Sir W. Norris's Embassy. Sir William Norris reached 
Surat on 12th April 1702 and " on the 18th waited on the new 

Governor and obtained permission for Nicholas 

Waite to go out of the city, in which he had been confined 
since the Ambassador left the Court." ^^^ 

Sir William Norris left Surat with 13 persons of his retinue 
for England on 29th April 1702, paying Rs. 10,000 

sadoro/murn ^^^ ^^^ P^^'^S^ ^^ ^ "P^^^^^ "^^P- ^is brother, 
Voyage. Mr. Norris, who was the Secretary of the 

Embassy, and 14 others of his suite went 
on board another ship which carried cargo of Ks. 60,000 
for the Company and Rs. 87,200 for Sir William Norris. 
Sir William Norris and Sir Nicholas Waite did not part on good 
terms. Sir WilHam "declined to deliver to Sir Nicholas Waite, 
a copy of his diary or papers, though he gave up his horses, camel, 
oxen and elephant, to be sold, on the Company's account." ^^^a 
From the time when the Ambassador left the Mogul Court, Sir 
Nicholas Waite began to charge in his dispatches to his English 

Company, the Ambassador of " imprudence of his conduct 

but promised to obtain the Phirmaunds through the 

means of the broker, without the condition of Security-Bonds," ^^^ 
which wanted to throw the responsibility of acts of piracy on the 
English Company. Here again we see that Rustam Manock was an 
influential personage in the eye of the English factory. Sir Nicholas 
Waite in his report, after referring to the causes of the failure of 
the Embassy, said that the Embassy had cost, in all, Rs. 676, 800 
" and that the Phirmaunds still remained to be purchased." ^^^a 

II. The state of affairs after the visit and after the return of 
the Ambassador's return to England. Rustam's association with 

those affairs. 

During this time, some attempts were made at home to unite the 

two Companies. The attempts came to maturity 

the hvo^Com- ^^ 1702-1703. More earnest measures were made, 

panies. with the despatch of new Men-of-War to suppress 

the pirates. " The Court hoped, that this measure 

33« Ibid, p. 472. 330^ j^i^^ pp 472. ^^^ Ibid, p. 477. ^^^ a Ibid. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 221 

would counteract the misrepresentations to the Mogul 
Oovernment, which Sir Nicholas Waite had so improperly 
• made, that the London Company had been secretly coimected 
with the pirates." 332 gjj Nicholas ' Waite received a formal 
intimation of the Union of the two Companies whose separate 
stocks were to cease to exist from 22nd July 1702. He " was 
required to use his best endeavours to relieve Sir John Gayer, and 
the London Company's servants, from the restraints under which 
they had been placed." ^^^ In case, the Mogul Government pressed 
for compensation for the depredations by the pirates, " he was 
directed to retire with the English Company's effects, to Bombay, 
that Island being now the joint property of both Companies." ^^^ 

During this interval, " though several months had elapsed since 

the Embassy left Surat, for Europe, Sir Nicholas Waite 

continued to ascribe to Sir William Norris, the failure of the negotia- 
tion, and to raise the hopes of the Court, that he would procure the 
Phirmaunds through the interest of Gazedeer Khan."*^^^ He was 
against the Union of the two Companies, but, when formal intimation 
of the Union was conveyed to him, he accepted the position and 
" assumed a formal civility to Sir John Gayer, w^hich was returned, 
as formally; neither, evidently, placing any reliance on ceremonies 
to which each submitted." ^^^* 

Sir John Gayer notified the Union " to the ( Mogul ) 
•Government of Surat, as an event which, he trusted, would draw 
away all future opposition of English interests : — this act .of duty 
was interpreted, by Sir Nicholas Waite, to be unfriendly to the 
interests of the English Company, and to it, he ascribed the stop 
which has been put to the Phirmaunds passing the Mogul's Great 
Seal. "336 He then consulted the other Presidencies, " whether he 
should take any further steps to obtain the Phirmaunds, because 
the estimated expenses of procuring them, would amount to the 
sum of Rs. 3,20,000, and he did not know whether they could be 
•carried to the separate stock of the English Company, or to the 
United Stock ; meantime, that he revoked the powers given to 
Rustum, the broker, to defray these charges, even should he be 
Able to obtain the Phirmaunds, In reply, those Presidencies 

3»2 Ihid, p. 493. 3^3 Ibid, p. 512. ^^^ Ibid, p. 513. »" Pnd, ]>. 519. 

jLUIUi, p. '±VO. ±UVU/ 

^»5« Ibid. 336 md, pp. 519-20. 

222 Rustam, Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

gave it as their opinion, that, as the Phirmaunds would apply ta 
both Companies, now United, they did not consider the expenses, 
as any reason for precluding him from soliciting them, as they 
were grants of so much importance to the trade of India." ^^^ 

Sir Nicholas Waite, after being informed of the Union by the 

Court in England, had, as said above, " expressed his 

claim resolution to observe a friendly intercourse with 

Sir John Gayer and his Council but 

that Eustum, the broker, had made a claim for sums 
expended, in obtaining the Ambassador's pardon from the 
Mogul." ^^^ The pardon was for his want of courtesy in leaving 
the Mogul Court without passports from the Emperor — an act for 
which he was detained at Burhanpore. Bruce thinks "that further 
negociation for Phirmaunds, was a pretext, only ; as the obtaining 
them would not have answered the purposes for which they were 
solicited "^^^ "Consul Pitt, and the Council at Masulipatam, still 
continued under the deception that Sir Nicholas Waite would be 
able to obtain the Phirmaunds." ^^^a 

On the foundation of the United East India Company, Sir 
John Grayer was re-appointed " General and Governor 
Sir John of Bombay," ^*o Mr. Burinston, Deputy Governor, 
oZZnor of ^^^ ^^^ Nicholas Waite, President at Surat. "To 
Bombay, prevent the recurrence of animosities, the Consular 

powers of Sir Nicholas Waite were revoked, as being, 
from the Union, no longer necessary. "^^^ Sir John Gayer was ordered 
to go to "the seat of Government at Bombay!" ^^^ From 22nd 
July 1702 " all charges were to be defrayed by the United Stock."^^^ 
Further, " it was ordered, that an exact account should be taken 
of the sums which had been extorted from the London Company, 
as compensation for the piracies ; but if the Phirmaunds had not 
been obtained by Sir Nicholas Waite, all farther negotiation respect- 
ing them was to terminate. "^*^ 

" When the Court (of Directors), towards the close of the 
season, were informed that the Phirmaunds had not been procured, 
they held it to be a fortunate circumstance, because it would 

3" Ibid, p. 520. ^3» Ibid, p. 520. ''«» Ibid, p. 521. ^^'a Ibid, p. 522. 
2*» Ibid, p. 531. 3" Ibid. ^^^ jf^^^ 343 j^,^^, 344 jj^^ p^ 532. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 223- 

prevent the payment of the large sums demanded for them, which 
must have embarrassed the English Company, and might have 
protracted the final settlement of the Union, which both Companies 
were solicitous to complete, previously to the lapse of the 
prescribed seven years." ^^^ As to the brokers, it was ordered 
that " the leading rule must be, to check all combinations among 
their brokers, and to endeavour to recover from them all debts 
incurred either in the sales of European, or the purchase of 
Indian produce." ^^^ 

In spite of the Union, differences between Sir John Gayer 
and Sir Nicholas Waite continued. The former's invitation to 
the latter for presence, when the inventory of the Dead Stock 
of the London Company was taken, was refused. One of the grounds- 
for doing so, was that " Sir John Gayer, by notifying the Union 
to the Governor of Surat (the Phirmaunds not having been obtained) 
had brought on a misunderstanding, which might be prejudicial 
to the English Company's affairs." ^*'' We find from the 
proceedings of the next year (1704-5) that "the most decided 
approbation was given to Sir John Gayer and his Council," ^^^ 
by the Court at home and there was " the most marked 
disapprobation of Sir Nicholas Waite' s conduct." ^*^ Again, Sir N. 
Waite was censured for not assisting in the taking of the 
inventory of the Dead Stocks of both Companies. ^^^ During this 
year 1704-5, the Home authorities, at first, were in doubt,, 
whether Sir John Gayer was released by the Mogul Governor 
or not. So, to provide for the contingency or his still being 
in prison, they " provided, that should Sir John Gayer remain 
a prisoner at Surat, when the instructions arrived, or for three 
months subsequently to that period, then Sir Nicholas Waite 
instead of being President at Surat, should act as General (of 
Bombay), provisionally, and employ his utmost efforts for the 
release of Sir John Gayer, and for recovering the Security-Bonds- 
extorted formerly from President Annesley." ^^^ 

«*5 Ibid, p. 532. 346 /j^^ p, 533. 

3*' Ibid, p. 542. 3" Ibid, p. 556. 

34« Ibid. 3^» Ibid, p. 557. 
351 Ibid, p. 564. 

224 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisoeh 

The Mogul Governor of Surat, not being able to know ''whethei 

Rustam ^^^ John Gayer, or Sir Nicholas Waite, was the 

Manock deput- chief officer of the United Company 

ed by Sir N. demanded evidence of the fact from both. Sir 
Waite for a pri- 
vate visit to John Gayer, on this emergency, requested Sir N. 

the Governor. Waite to send an agent from the English Com- 
pany, to meet one from the London Company, that they might 
together wait on the Governor, and state to him, that Sir John 
Gayer was the General of the United Company." ^^^ "g^^^ instead 
of complying with this request, Waite " sent Rustum, his broker, 
privately to the Governor, to insinuate that Sir John Gayer had 
been displaced, that he, himself, was the General, and that Sir 
John Gayer must be confined, and a proper guard placed over 
the London Company's Factory, if the Mogul Government 
intended to recover money for the damages done by the 
pirates, amounting to eighty lacks of rupees ; and, at the same 
time, seconded this iniquitous proceeding, by sending him a bribe 
of twenty-seven thousand rupees." ^^^ 

The Mogul Governor, taking this to be true, "asked Mr. Bonnell, 
and another Member of the English Company's 
fonfir^Jlnt?^^'' Council, whether. Sir John Gayer^^^ should be allow- 
ed to go to Bombay (as he was no longer General), 
the English Company would become bound for the debts 

due by the London Company: — Sir Nicholas Waite 

preferred the expedient of refusing to become bound for 
the debts of the London Company and left their General to his 
fate : — the immediate consequence was, that Sir John Gayer and 
the London Company's servants, were kept in more close con- 
finement."^^^. " Mr. Burnstone, the Deputy Governor of Bombay, 
and Commodore Harland who commanded the men of war, on 
hearing of this event not only remonstrated but addressed letters 
to the Governor of Surat, assuring him that Sir John Gayer was, 

""" Ibid, p. 565. 353 lud, p. 565. 

3^* Sir John Gayer's arrival at Surat from England has been thus given 

in a Gujarati Jamaspi ; " ^'<\r\ \^^o ^i^ ^iw m Mi<ii ^ M ^i^-d o\^ ^H^^ ^airt«i 

a>ii«i5<i is Si^H " i.e.. In Samvat 1750, on roz 5, mah 6, Shajan {i.e., Sir John) 

Gayer Signer (i.e., an European gentleman) has come to-day from London. 

' ( Vide my Pahlavi Translations, Part III, Jamaspi. Preface, p. XX.) 

3^^ lUd, ppt 565-66. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh t 225 

in fact, the General of the United Company in India, and that the 
reports of Rustum, and of Sir Nicholas Wajte, were not only in 
opposition to the orders which had been received from the Court of 
Managers, but absolutely false, and, therefore, demanded that Sir 
John Gayer might be released, "^^e Sir John Gayer" s confinement was 
ordered for three years. Alarmed at this letter, the Mogul Governor 
asked Sir N. Waite to pass " a Bond of Security that he would 
immediately proceed to Bombay, and, in the event of any of the 
Surat ships being taken, deliver them up.'' ^57 Both, Sir John 
Gayer and Sir N. Waite, wrote letters to the Court of Managers 
in England against one another. 

Then, when, according to the above bond. Sir X. Waite asked 
from Commodore Harland for a ship to come 
Sir N. Waite, to Bombay, the latter refused. So, he came to 
ofBombay^^^He ^^^^^i^ V ^^^^ ^^^ then took a country vessel 
appointed for Bombay where he arrived in November 1704. 
Rustam broker jjg ^q^]^ ^j^^ Acting Governorship of Bombav 
also for the ^ ^ . ® , a^ , 

*' United ^^^ ^^^^ ^ lo^^g report about Bombay to 

Trade." London. In it, he reported that he "had 

nominated Rustum to be broker for the United Trade. "^^** 
Then, in one of his reports, he said " that, in future, a Factor or 
two, and a few Writers, would be perfectly sufficient for the ma- 
nagement of the United Trade at Surat, as Bombay must be 
made the centre of their power and trade. ''^^^ This is the beginning 
of his attempts to give Surat, a second place of importance, 
and Bombay, of which he was now Governor, the first place. 
At this time, the Dutch, retiring from Surat to Swally, had 
threatened to harass the trade, unless the Security Bonds for the 
protection of the Surat Trade from the pirates were returned to 
them. The bonds were returned to them. Sir N. Waite could 
not similarly force the return of the Security Bonds from the 
English, because, he had no sufficient force to blockade the river 
at Surat. However, he obtained " a promise from the Governor 
to deliver up the Security Bonds and to use his influence to obtain 
a new Phirmaund." ^^^« Commodore Harland, not pulling on well 
with Sir N. Waite, retired from Bombay on 29th January 1705. 


Ibid, p. 566. »" Ibid. '^^ Ibid, p. 569. ^^s Jbid, p. 570. "»« Ibid, p. 371.. 

226 ^ Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

In 1705-6, the afiairs of tlie United Company, had, in no way, 
improved. The English Company seems to have been forced 
to consent to the Union. It was after some years after the first 
Union, that both the Companies were to cease as separate concerns 
with separate management. So, the English Company's Directors, 
at times, sent instructions opposed to the Union. Sir N. Waite 
continued the use of his influence for strict measures for Sir John 
Gayer's confinement. The Directors of the English Company 
encouraged Sir N. Waite in his attempts to hold and grasp further 
powers for himself and the English Company .^^° It appears 
that, at this time (in 1705-6), "the Governor of Surat was 
equally indisposed against all the European Companies. "^^^ 
" Six Dutch ships had arrived ofi Surat, and blockaded the 
port, on which the ( Mogul ) Governor ordered the Members 
of the English Council to be confined within the city, and supplies 
of provisions and water withheld from the shipping. "^^^ Again, 
" the Mogul's army in December 1705, was within three days' 
march of the Coast, opposite the island of Bombay,"^^^ and Sir 
Nicholas Waite was " in an alarm for the safety of the Company's 
property. "^^* Again, the Mahrathas " in April 1706 invested the 
City of Surat, for nine days."*^^^ 

By this time, there arose a friction between Sir Nicholas 
Waite and Rustam. " While he was President 
tween Sir N ^^ Surat, Rustum, whom, from his first arrival, 
White and he had employed as broker, continued, from 
Bustam. interested motives, attached to his views ; but after 

he assumed the office of General at Bombay, this cautious 
Native, discovering that his object was to make that Island the 
centre of trade explained to Mr. Bonnel and Mr. Proby, the English 
Company's servants at Surat, that Sir Nicholas Waite had promised 
to give him fifty thousand rupees, to use his influence with the 
Governor, to keep Sir John Gayer confined, which sum was to be 
paid to him, individually, by advances, on the prices of the Company's 
goods, to that account. When Sir Nicholas Waite was informed 
of this conduct of Rustum, he dismissed him from the English 
Company's employment, notwithstanding the United Trade 

3«« Ibid, p. 586. 3'' Ibid, p. 593. ^^^ /^^^^ p^ 594^ 363 75^-^ 364 jj^i^l. 
365 iMd, 

Rmtam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh • 227 

was then indebted to him 1,40,000 rupees, and the separate 
, Companies 5,50,000 rupees and if the Surat Council had not prevailed 
on the merchants to take their bills, the whole property of the 
EngHsh would have been seized. ^^^« 

" This state of affairs between Nicholas Waite and Mr. Proby, 
would not but produce animosities : — the former 
v)^F^^SiT ^N. ^^^^'^ ^y protesting against the conduct of the 
Waite and Mr. latter and of Mr. Bonnell, and they retaliated, by 
P^oby. declaring, in their letters to the Court, that it 

was impracticable to procure regular investment, under the 
contradictory orders which Sir Nicholas Waite sent to them, and, 
I in fact, it was impossible to execute them ; and, therefore, unless 
j Rustum should be restored they neither could be responsible 
for the Company's property, nor their own liberty. Under 
such an administration it may be easily supposed that 
neither the stock of the United Company could be safe, nor 
their investments forwarded ; and farther, to second their applica- 
tion in favour of Rustum, Mr. Proby and Mr. Bonnel accused 
Sir Nicholas Waite of procuring goods, at cheaper rates for himself, 
than for the Company, and of having purchased one hundred 
and forty four bales of indigo, on his private account, contrary to 
the positive orders of the Court. "^^^ While affairs were in this 
state at Surat, Sir Nicholas Waite reported to the Court, that 
Bombay was weak in the matter of soldiers and that fresh 
European soldiers may be sent. 

Coming to the year 1706-7, Bruce speaks of " the conse- 
quences of the unwise proceedings by which 
Unwise pro- gjj. Nicholas Waite endangered the existence of 
N. Waite. the Company's trade and Settlements and the 

weakness of the Court of Managers in still permit- 
ting him to continue in office." ^^^ The Mahratha armies 
were hovering about Surat. The Dutch fleet blockaded 
Surat and secured a release from their Security Bonds 
and Sir Nicholas Waite was continuing his oppression of 

""^^a Ibid, p. 595. 3«« Ibid, p. 596. '" Ibid, p. 614. The members of 
' the Court of the United Company were, for some time, spoken of as 
t Managers, those of the London Company as Committees, and those of the 
j Enghsh Company as Directors. 

228 . Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

the London Company's servants. His conduct "had nearly 
ruined their afiairs."^^^ Waite complained, that " Mr. Proby andMr. 
Bonnell, the Surat Council had embezzled the Company's property, 
in indigo, to the value of eleven thousand rupees, and given credit to- 

the accusations of Rustum, the broker, against him Mr. Proby 

and Mr. Bonnell, in reply, asserted that Sir Nicholas Waite had been 
guilty of fraud, in making an overcharge in the purchase of the 
Company's goods, to the amount of thirty-five thousand rupees, and 
that he had promised this sum to Eustum, the broker, if he would 
use his influence with the Governor, to detain Sir John Gayer, 
and the London Company's Council, in confinement. "^^^ This 
passage shows that the relations between Sir N. Waite and 
Rustam Manock continued to be a estranged. 

By this time, the United Council (^".e., the Council 

The Council ^f ^j^g United East India Company) was formed 
of the United , .. r jj 

East India Com- as follows :— 

pany transfer- Mr. Bendall (Old London Company's Servant) 
ring itself tothe President 

quarters rented 
by Rustam. Mr. Proby (New English Company's Servant) 

Mr. Wyche (London Company's) . . . . Third. 

Mr. Boone (English Company's) . . . . . . Fourth. 

Sir Nicholas Waite did not approve of these nominations. The 
United Council, immediately on appointment, removed to the 
English Company's factory at Surat, which Rustam had secured for 
the English Factory for Rs. 3,000 per year. They also " requested 
the Court's protection against the malicious representations of 
Sir Nicholas Waite, under whose orders they regretted they had 
been unfortunately placed. "^^^ Sir N. Waite, in his representation 
to the Court, asked for more Officers and Writers. He also asked 
for more soldiers, as he had to hire Topasses.-^^^ 

3«8 Ihid, p. 619. 369 ji^i^^ p^ 619^ 370 i^ifi^ p^ g20. 

371 " Portugeze Topaz, perhaps from the Hindustani Topi, a hat. A native! 
Christian sprung from a Portuguese father and Indian mother in the south'' 
of India : in the early history of the Company, these people were extensively 
enlisted as soldiers ; hence, this term came to be applied to the Company's 
native soldiery generally in the Peninsula." (Wilson's Oriental Language 
Crlossary of Terms, p. 525.) 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 229 

President Pitt of Madras, in one of his general reports to the 
old Company at this time, disapproved of the Union of the two 
Companies, but added: "But that,. considering the conduct of 
Sir Nicholas Waite, and the license which had been given him, to 
continue his unjustifiable proceedings, which had nearly brought 
the Company's trade on the West Coast to a stand, it was fortunate, 
perhaps, that the Union had taken place ; for such had been his 
absurd violence, that Mr. Brabourne would not accept the 
ofiice of Deputy Governor of Bombay, because he would not serve 
under a man, whose behaviour he represented to be so absurd, that 
the civil servants of the Company, in that quarter, had declared 
they would rather be private sentinels at Fort St. George than 
serve as Second in Council under Sir Nicholas Waite. "^^^ 

In 1707-8, Sir Nicholas Waite, who hitherto was encouraged 

" in his narrow and selfish projects of 

Sir N. Waits continuing himself in power ; and retaining 

dismissed. Sir John Gayer and the London Company's 

oldest and best servants in confinement " ^^^ was 

dismissed from the service. They " appointed a new General 

and Council at Bombay, four of whom were to constitute the 

President and Council at Surat. The general instruction given 

to this Council was, to lay aside animosities of every kind and to 

exert their best endeavours for the liberation of Sir John Gayer 

and his Council." 374 

" The Managers of the United Trade, and the Committees of 
the London, and the Directors of the English Companies, adopted 
measures to prepare for their foreign Settlements for the Award 
of Lord Godolphin, which, it had been enacted should be completed 
before the 29th September 1708. The Court of Managers, 
under the circumstances, appointed a new General and 
Council at Bombay : — Mr. Aislabie, formerly in the London 
Company's service, was nominated to be General ; Mr. Proby, 
Second in Council." ^^^ This Council which was to consist of seven 
persons in all, were " to select four of themselves to be President 
and Council at Surat." ^^^ Then " the Court of the London Company 
Inotified to Sir John Gayer, that Sir Nicholas Waite had been 

3'- Bruce's Annals. Vol. Ill, pp. 625-26. "» Ibid, p. 636. "* Ibid 
^Ibid, pp. 640-41, "« Ibid, p. 641. 


230 ( Rustam Mancck and the Persian Qisseh m 

dismissed from the service of tlie United Company ; lamented his 
long confinement at Surat,^^^ and informed him that Mr! Aislabie. ... i 
had, with his Council,received the most positive orders to use every 

effort for his liberation The Court of the English Company 

softened, as much as they could, to Sir Nicholas Waite, the 
event of his dismission, by informing him that the Court of 
Managers had thought fit to 'discontinue' him from being General , 
at Bombay."378 | 

A short time before this dismissal, and some time after the! 
death of Aurangzib, when his sons fought against each other, and 
when the Mahrathas, under ' Som Kajah ' (Sahaji) on the one 
hand, and the Arab fleets on the other, taking advantage of j 
the weakness of the Mogul Power, were asserting their powers, i 
Sir Nicholas Waite, as General at Bombay, and the Company's 
Agents at Surat were continuing their reciprocal animosities."'' 
Sir Nicholas Waite wanted to bring the trade from Surat to Bombay | 
and the Surat factors opposed him in this attempt. We saw above 
that it was this attempt and this opposition that had led Sir N. 
Waite to remove Kustam from his brokership. The Factors at 
Surat complained, that " they had been obliged to contract debts, \ 
on the United Company's account, to the amount, this season 
(170 J-8) of 48,000 rupees." ^^<^ Under these circumstances, " any 
application for a Phirmaund was impracticable. "^^^. 

We gather the following particulars and date; 

Dates about about Kustam Manock's association with the' 
Rustam from -r t r^ t -j^ a r i 

Bruce' s Annals, -c^ast India Company on the authority oi JoJ 

B race's Annals :'^^^ 
January 1700. — Eustam Manock appointed broker of th^ 
New English East India Company. In 1698, the Private Mei 
chants of England had " renewed their former application 
obtain from Parliament an Act for creating a New East Indi 
Company. The Act was passed in 1698. News of the formatic 

^" The confinement was not in any prison but in his Factory. He 
not allowed to go out. "s gruce's Annals III pp. 641-642. "» Ibid, p. 6f 
38» Ibid, p. 650. ««^ Ibid, p. 651. ^«' Annals of the Honorable Es 
India Company from their Establishment by the Charter of Queen Elizabetl 
1600, to the Union of the London and English East India Companic 
1707-8, by John Bruce, Vol. Ill (1810). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 231 

of the new Company arrived at Fort St. George on 28th October 
1698. Sir Nicholas Waite, who was appointed the first President 
of this Company at Surat, arrived off Bombay on 11th January 
1700. He arrived at Surat on 19th January 1700. As he em- 
ployed Rustam as broker from the very time of his arrival at 
Surat, we arrive at the latter end of January 1700, as the date of 
Rustam' s appointment as broker. 

20th January 1701. — Rustam Manock left Surat for the Mogul 
Court in the Company of Sir William Norris, the Ambassador from 
the English Court. Sir William Norris had landed at Masalipatam 
on 25th September 1699. From there, he went to Surat and 
arrived there on 10th December 1700, and left Surat for the Mogul 
Court on 20th January 1701. Rustam accompanied him, 

7th April 1701. — Sir William Norris and Rustam Manock 
arrived at Parnella, the seat of Aurangzeb's camp. 

28th April 1701. — Sir William Norris went to Aurangzib's 
Court in a procession and paid a formal visit to pay respects. 
It was during the interval between 7th April, the date of arrival 
at Parnella, and 28th April, the date of the formal official visit, 
that Rustam Manock must have made the presents from the 
Ambassador, and, perhaps, from himself also, as said by the Qisseh, 
to the Prime Minister and other Officials of the Court. It was at 
this visit that Rustam Manock seems to have interpreted the desire 
of the Ambassador and asked for a farman, etc. 

5th November 1701. — Sir William Norris remaining at 
Parnella for about 7 months, left the Mogul Court to return 
bo Surat. 

8th November 1701. — Sir W. Norris and Rustam detained on 
the road, after 3 days' march from the Emperor's camp, on the 
ground, that Norris had left the camp without a pass from the 
Emperor himself, the one that he had being from an inferior 

14th November 1701. — Sir W. Norris and Rustam reached 

22nd November— Both left Burhanpore, but were obliged to 
return at the instance of the Governor of Burhanpore. 

232 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

6ih February 1701.— Sir William Norris left Burhanpore for 
Surat, but "Rustam, the broker, was detained at tbe Emperor's 
orders." Rustam seems to have been detained by tbe Emperor, 
because being an important personage of the Embassy, he may 
be nearer the Court to receive final orders about the farman, etc. 

February-March 1701. — Sir Nicholas Waite "revoked the 
powers given to Rustam, the broker, to defray the charges " of 
obtaining farmans. 

1701. — Sir Nicholas Waite informed the Court of Directors 
that " Rustum, the broker, had made a claim for sums expended in 
obtaining the Ambassador's pardon from the Mogul." ^^'^ This 
pardon refers to the fault of the Ambassador having left the 
Court suddenly without a pass from the Emperor. 

1704. — When Sir John Gayer was appointed the General of 
the United Company, Sir Nicholas Waite "sent Rustum, his broker, 
privately to the (Mogul) Governor, to insinuate that Sir John 
Gayer had been displaced, that he, himself, was the General, and 
that Sir John Gayer must be confined ^^*" and he sent to the 
Governor a bribe of 27,000 rupees. Thereupon, Mr. Burniston, the 
Deputy Governor of Bombay and Commodore Harland, sent 
assurances to the Governor " that the reports of Rustum and Sir 
Nicholas Waite were absolutely false. "^^^ 

November 1704. — Sir Nicholas Waite reported to the Court 
at Home that he had also " nominated Rustam to be broker for 
the United Trade." 

1705. — Some time after his being Governor of Bombay, when 
he tried to make Bombay the Headquarter of the United Company, 
he dismissed Rustam " from the English Company's employment 
notwithstanding the United Trade was then indebted to him 
1,40,000 Rupees and the separate Companies 5,50,000 rupees.''^^ 
The Surat Officer, Mr. Proby, protested and wrote : "Unless Rustam 
should be restored, they neither could be responsible for the Com- 
pany's property, nor their own liberty and further, to second 

their application in favour of Rustum, Mr. Proby and Mr. Bonnel 
accused Sir Nicholas Waite of procuring goods at cheaper rates foi 
himself than for the Company. "^^^(a) 

383 Ibid, p. 520. 384 l^l^^ p 5g5 385 IJ^i^^ p 5gl^ 386 /J^^^ p^ ^^^ 

38«(a) Ibid, 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 233 

We learn from the Qisseh that Rustam Manock had asked 

Subjects refer- for several privileges on behalf of the English and 

/• / to in Rus- they were granted. Some of the subjects of these 

1(1 III IVlCbTlOCiC S ' "I e 1 • I-* 1 

' seA confirm- pnvileges, referred to m Bruce s Annals, are 

btj Bruce' s the following : 

(1) House for the English Factory. 

(2) Warehouses. 

(3) Free ingress into and egress from the city. 

(4) Presents to the officers of the Mogul Court. 

(5) The Farman or order of temporary concession. 

The Qisseh says that Rustam Manock secured a palatial house 
for the English Company at Surat, with an iram-^^ 
like garden (c. 347) on the bank of the river 
(1) The H arise (Tapti). It was a place for residence as well as 
secured by Rus- ^ pi^ce for trade. It was rented from Haii 
tow for the New tt • t^ r -r» 
English Com- Hajaz Beg for Rs. 3,000 per year (c. 359). This 

yany at Surat. is the house referred to in Bruce' s Annals more 
than once. It is "the house which he (Sir Nicholas 
Waite) hired" ^^^ and on which he wanted " to 
hoist the King's flag,"^*^ to get permission for which Sir N. Waite 
had to give a large present to the Mogul King. ^^^ We learn from 
Bruce that there was, as it were, a battle of flags between the two 
rival East India Companies. At first, the old Company had hoisted 
the King's flag. Sir W. Nicholas contrived to get it dismounted. 
This offended, not only the officers of the old Company, but also 
the Nawab or Governor of Surat, because the dismounting was done 
without his permission. The old Company re-hoisted the flag. 
This desire on the part of Sir N. Waite to hoist the King's flag 
on his factory supplies the reason, why he wanted, and why Rustam 
Manock secured for him, a really good large house. According 
to Bruce, Sir N. Waite desired to have in the farman from the 
Emperor, the " liberty of trade, and to settle Factories in any ports 
in the Mogul's dominions ; — to have free ingress and egress for 
himself and Council, without search ; to have license to hire or 

^^' " dda M 1 iram, the fabulous gardens said to have been devised 
oy Shaddad bin ' Ad in emulation of the gardens of paradise". (Steingass.) 
««« Bruce's Annals III, p. 370. ^^^ Ibid. ^^^ Ibid, p. 370. 

234 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

build a house and warehouses" ^^^ The question of the house seeme( 
to have been so important that Sir N. Waite, in one of his letters 
to the Directors, said, that " the house was commodious, anc 
situated nearer the Custom-house than that of the London Com- 
pany. "^^^ Just as the Qisseh speaks of this act of hiring a house 
as the very first act of Rustam Manock after being employed as 
broker, Bruce speaks of Sir Nicholas Waite's removal of " th 
flag of the London Company" and that of hoisting "the King'i 
flag " on his newly rented house as " the first measure of Sir Nichol 
Waite" after his arrival at Surat.^^^ 

This house is the house, now owned by the heirs of the late 
Dr. Dossabhoy Cooper, who was an Honorary Surgeon to H. E. 
the Viceroy. I remember that, when I once paid a visit to Dr. 
Dossabhoy, about 10 years ago, he spoke, with some pride, of being 
the fortunate possessor of the house of the English East Lidia 
Company. There is no doubt that Dr. Dossabhoy's house is the 
house of the English Factory. On my making inquiries about the 
subsequent history of the house, through Mr. Cowasji Burjorji 
Vakil, the President of the Parsee Panchayet of Surat, Dr. Dossal 
bhoy's son, Mr. A. Dossabhoy Cooper, wrote to Mr. Cowasji Vakil 
in his letter dated 6th July 1928 : "It (the house) belonged before 
our purchase to some relations of the Nabob of Cambay, who 
must be blood relations of the Surat Nabob family. It seems to 

have changed ownership by marriage dowry It was 

purchased by father from one Mirza Bakuralli valad e Mirza Mogul 

Beg I cannot say whether Haji Hajaz Beg was related 

to the above (Mirza Mogul Beg), but it looks likely. I also cannot 
clearly identify the building secured for factory by one Rustam 

Manock of Surat for Rs. 3,000 per annum But if the 

building was hired for English it can be none other than the one 
we now posses^." ^^* 

Dr. Dossabhoy, the father of the present owners^ 

The Tablet on put up on the house a tablet with th^ 

vresent following Inscription in English and Gujarati : 


3»i Ibid, p. 397. ««2 j^-^^ p 4Q7 393 /^^^^ p 370 394 ^fter the abo 
correspondence I had the pleasure of seeing the house again, and I think it i 
the very house rented by Rustam Manock for the English East India 
Company's Factory. , 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 235 

"The Englisli Factory originally built in A.D. 1618 under a 
/treaty made witli Prince Khurram (Shah Jahan) son of the Emperor 
iJahangir, through the ambassador Sir Thomas Eoe, it withstood 
ta siege by the Marathas under Shivaji in A.D. 1664, and was again 
^attacked by the Marathas in A.D. 1703. It ceased to be used for 
fits original purpose after Surat was annexed by the British in 
A.D. 1800." 

5t,5H -<[< 1^o3'h[ i^'ii^ ^<l mc-^l (411. 5H"^^5i ^;cl4 ^IclMl Rl^t^ 

The inscription, which is put up very recently is altogether 
faulty. The house had nothing to do with Khurram or his father 
Jahangir. The embassy of Thomas Eoe at his court was not a 
success. The late owner. Dr. Dossabhoy, seems to have mixed 
up the later Embassy of Sir William Norris to the Court of Aurangzeb 
with that of Thomas Roe to the Court of Jahangir. 

Rustam Manock applied for permission to have warehouses 
(ambar-khaneh c. 378). He prays that both, 

(2) Permis- ^^^ factory for business trade (kar-i tojarat) 
sion for Ware- and the warehouses may be on the same place. 
houses, &c. ^^ ^^^ fj.Qj^ Bruce's Annals that Sir Nicholas 

Waite, in his letters, asks for " a license to hire 
or build a house and warehouses. "^^^ An inspection of the house, 
even at present, shows us that by the side of the house and connected 
with it are large commodious warehouses. 

During his visit to the Mogul Court with the Ambassador, 

(3) Rustam Rustam Manock pleads for the privilege of free 
peal7o Auralg. ingress and egress for the Factors at Surat. He 
zeb for free in- complains (c. 375) that the nobles of the Court 
gress and egress ^f jjjg Maiestv do not permit a free ingress into 
for the English , . , /n ^ 

Factors. the city (of Surat). 

^— t^ -^^; ^^;*^ 11^'^^' ./r^ hu:i^ ^\^ J^*^ Jy 

"5 Bruce's Annals, III, p. 397. 


236 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

We learn from Bruce's Annals, that Sir Nicholas Waite, in 
one of his very first letters, asks for " free ingress and egress for 
himself and Council without search. "^^^ It seems that, to a certain* 
extent, they had an "ingress and egress," but they had always to pass 
through a search by Mogul Custom House officers. They prayed, 
through Rustam Manock, for a privilege to be saved from this search, 
as they had now and then to go to their ships at the Swally bunder. 

We learn from the Qisseh, that before going into the presence 

of the Emperor, Rustam Manock (on behalf of 

(4) Presents ^]jg English) gave large presents (nazraneh o 

to the Officers of ^ i j. . , nrr^\ 1.11 1 1 11 

the Mogul Court, tohfa-i setorg c. 379), and thereby pleased all 
the courtiers as well as the king (Sultan), 
These gifts and presents made way (rah kard) for the acceptance 
of his requests for privileges. We find the following references to 
the presentation of gifts and presents to the Emperor and his 
Court officers in the Annals of Bruce : 

(a) " His (Sir Nicholas Waite's) opinion was that the 
Ambassador might give to the Mogul, and his ministers, besides 
the presents, a sum not exceeding two lacks of rupees : — he then 
enumerated the principal officers of the Mogul, to whom portions 
of this sum were to be offered ; seven of whom must be bribed high, 
to conciliate them to the interests of the English Company. In 
conducting the negociation, he cautioned the Ambassador, if he 
expected to succeed, not to dispute with the officers of the Mogul, 
on the ceremonies or precedence, to which Ambassadors in Europe 
were habituated, because, in the Mogul Empire, such forms could 
not be admitted." 397 

(b) Sir William Norris, when at Damondavee on 21st 
February 1701, on his way to the Mogul Court, " received authority 
from Sir Nicholas Waite, to pay such sums as might be necessary 
to obtain the privileges, it being advisable to give any amount 
for them, before the arrival of Dr. Davenant (a Factor of the rival 
London East India Company), who might counteract the whole 
of the negotiation ; and to induce the Mogul to accede to his 
requests, he was empowered to offer six thousand maunds of lead, 
per annum, at six rupees per maund."^^^ 

«»« Brace's Annals, 111, p. 397. ^^' Annals, III, pp. 403-04. ^*' Ibid, 
III, p. 405. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 237 

The Qisseh says that Aurangzib, on hearing Rustam Manock 
on behalf of the English, ordered his minister 
r^ Th F Asad Khan, that a manshur, i.e., a royal mandate, 
man or order of might be given to the kolali-yosh (Englishman). 
Concessions. Asad Khan ordered a writer (dabir) to prepare 

a farman permitting the English to have (a) 
egress into the city of Surat, (b) a mansion and 
store-house (makan o sara)^^^,(c) an exemption from custom duties(ba 
mal-i tojarat zakatash ma'af. c. 388). The /arman was prepared 
and the king put his jewelled seal on it (bar an mohr-i khud kard 
Shah ba nagin c. 389). The king gave the signed document to 
his Dastur, i.e., minister, who sent it to the English (Angrez) at 
the hands of a messenger (chawash). The Englishman was pleased 
when he received the farman and turned with permission (as 
razayash be taft, c. 391) towards Surat. He took the way towards 
Surat and Rustam went in another direction. Now, the last part 
of this account is not on all fours with what had happened accord- 
ing to the English account. It seems that what was given was 
not a regular farman. A farman was promised, but not 
actually given but some temporary concessions seem to have been 
provisionally granted. We learn from Bruce's Annals, that Sir 
Edward Littleton, "Consul for the English nation in Bengal" had 
made all possible efforts " to assist the Embassy of Sir William 
Norris and to purchase temporary grants, to carry on trade till 
the Phirmaund could be obtained " ''^^ 


5. Rustam Manock's Visit, during his Return Journey 

from the Mogul Court, to ( \) D nda Rajpuri. 

(b) Daman and (c) Naosari. 

According to the Qisseh, Rustam Manock, after obtaining the 
necessary privileges for the English, parted from the Englishman 
who went direct to Surat. He, before returning to Surat, visited 
the following places : (a) Dandah-i Rajpuri, (b) Daman, and 
(c) Naosari. 

^»» The word sara means " a house, an inn." The Gujarati translator 

translates as " a warehouse " (=i^l^ rt'^l ililil wa?^,. c. 380.) 
*«» Annals, III, pp. 414-5. 

238 ^Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

These visits are briefly referred to in the Qisseh. The visit to 
Naosari was from a religious point* of view, viz., to pray, before the 
Atash Behram, the Fire-Temple of the first grade, for giving 
thanks for his successful mission to the Mogul Court. The visit 
to Dandeh-i Rajpuri may be either from the point of view of being 
useful in some way to the English Company, whose broker 
he was or from his own personal point of view as a financier, 
merchant, or broker. This place, situated on the sea-coast at the 
distance of a few miles from Bombay, played a very important 
part in the history of the Moguls, the Mahrathas and the British. 
Rustam's visit of Daman may, most probably, be from the point 
of view of his being a broker of the Portuguese. So, I will speak 
here of Rustam's visit to these three places. 

(a) Dandeh-i Rajpur, c. 394. 

According to the Qisseh, Rustam Manock, after obtaining 
the necessary permission from Aurangzib for the English, parted 
from the Englishman, who went direct to Surat. He went, at first 
to Dandeh-i Rajpur, where he was welcomed by Yaqub Khan 
This place is not much known nowadays, but, at one time, the 
history of Aurangzeb and Shivaji, of the English and the 
Portuguese, of Yaqub and other Sidis,^^i was all associated with this 
place. Again, at one time, the history of Rajpur, Dandeh Rajpur, 
Janjira, Bombay and the Western Coast of India was closely 
connected. So, I will speak here on the history of the place, which 
will make us understand the probable cause of Rustam Manock's 
visit of the place. 

The name of the place is written a little differently by different 
writers. The Qisseh writes it as Dandeh-i Rajpur ( ;^=^ ] ) i^i] d) 
Khafi Khan speaks of it as Dandeh Rajpuri ( ;^;^Aa.); XcVj^) or 
Danda Rajpuri (^_5; ?i> i; J «^ 1 ^Y^^. Grant Dufi speaks of it as 
'' Dhunda Rajepoor."403 

*"^ Africans and especiall5/^ the Abyssinians were known by this name. 

*"^ Muntakhab-al-Lubab by Maulavi Ahmed. Bengal Asiatic Society, 
Ed. (1874), Vol. II, pp. 113, 1.5,224,1.3 &c. Elliot's History of India Vol. VII, 
p. 289. 

*°^ History of the Mahrathas 2nd ed. by Edwards I., p. 155, Ist.ed, p. 73. 

Itustarn Manock and the Persian Qisseh, 239 

It was at this Dandeli Rajapuri, one of the two places— the other 
being Kalyan— where, before his Sack of Surat, Shivaji " mustered 

his forces in two concentration camps with the 

ostensible object of a campaign against the Portuguese at Cheul 
and Bassein and a final struggle with the Abyssinians at Janjira. 
The real motive for this concentration of his forces, however, was 
a sudden march upon Surat and the sack of that emporium of 
trade on the western coast." ^^"^ 

Raj pur or Rajapur is the country, now known as the country 
of the Nawab of Janjira. The Dandeh-i Raj pore 
Its Situation. is the Fort of Rewadanda which is at some dis- 
tance from Janjira. It is spoken of as Dandeh-i 
Raj pur, perhaps to distinguish it from the place, known as Danda 
on the sea shore, at the northern foot of the Pali Hill near Bandra. 

The history of Raj pur, Dandeh-i Raj pur and Janjira is very 
much connected. Janjira is a rocky island on the south of Bombay 
at a distance of about 45 miles. "^^^ Raj pur or Rajpuri is on the 
mainland separated by a creek known as the Rajpuri creek. It is 
about half a mile east of Janjira, which, as it were, guards the 
Rajpuri creek and the town and district of Rajpuri. The place known 
as Danda, and more commonly known as the Dandeh-i Rajpuri, is 
about 2 miles on the south-east of the town of Rajpuri. " But 
these two towns (Raj pur and Dandeh) are regarded as one place 
and formed the head-quarters of the land- possessions of the Seedis, 
covering much of the Northern district of Colaba. From this 
tract, were drawn the revenue and provisions that nourished the 
government of Janjira."^^^ The English opened a Factory at 
Rajpur in 1G19, with a view to capture the pepper and cardamom 
trade that passed through it. 

"^ The Life of Shivaji Maharaj by N. S. Takakhav ( 1921), p. 237. 

*"^ It was the invasion of Bombay by the Habsis (Abyssinians) of Janjira, 
that Rustamji Sorabji Patel is said to have repelled in 1692 (History of the 
Patel Family by Bomanji B. Patel). One of his descendants Rustomji 
Kavasji Patel, in his petition dated 25th July 1833 to the then Governor, 
Earl of Clare, said on this subject : " Also when the Seeddees took possession 
of the whole of Bombay, my ancestor Rustom Dorab Patel fought on the 
side of the English and was actually for three days in charge of the Govern- 
ment of the island " (Parsi Prakash I p. 21 n). 

"« Sarkar's Shivaji, p. 331, Chap. XI. 

240 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

We read the following in Khafi Khan's Muntakhab-iil-Lubab*°^ 

" When the Imperial Government became friendly 

Khafi Khan ^^^^ Bijapur, the Kokan, which had belonged 

on Danda-Raj- to Nizam-ul-Mulk, was granted to Adil Shah in 

puriandJanjira. exchange for territory newly acquired by Bijapur. 

Fateh Khan, an Afghan, was appointed governor 

of the country on the part of Bijapur and he posted himself in the 

fort of Danda-Eajpuri,*^® which is situated half in the sea and half 

on land. Subsequently he built the fort of Janzira*^^ upon an 

island in the sea, about a cannon shot distant from Danda-Raj puri, 

in a very secure position, so that if the governor of the country was 

hard pressed by an enemy, he might have a secure retreat in that 


Dr. John Fryer speaks of it as a " Strong Castle, envi- 
roned about by the sea, but within Shot of the 
Fryer on Dan- Main,'^i^ which Siva ^^^ with a great Effort has lain 
deh-i-Eajpuri. before these fifteen Years : The Mogul succouring 
it by sea, it derides the Batteries of his Artilleries ; 
and these are the Fleets we are so often troubled with at 

Janjira, Raj pur and Dandeh Raj pur were, in the early part 
of the 16th century, held by the Sultans of 
The History Ahmednagar, and one of the Siddee (Habsi or 
pur*^3^ Abyssinian) cliieftains of Ahmednagar was 

appointed the Governor of Dandeh Raj pur in the 
early part of the 16th century. But with the fall of the Ahmed- 
nagar Sultanate in the 17th century, the Siddee ruler became well- 
nigh independent. In 1636, the Bijapur Sultanate acknowledged 

^•^ Muntakhab-ul-Lubab of Khafi Khan. Elliot's History of India, Vol. 
VII, p. 289 et seq. 

*°^ " Dand and Rajpuri are close togethernear Janjira". Ibid, p. 256, n. 1. 

*°^ " Janzira, the island, but it is more commonly known under the 
Marathiform ' Jinjara ". Ibid p. 289, n. 2. 

*^" i.e.. Mainland. *^^ Shivaji. *^^ " A New Account of the East India 
and Persia in Eight Letters, being nine years' Travels, Begun 1672 and 
Finished 1681," by John Fryer, M.D. (1698), p. 173. 

*^^ Vide Sarkar's Shivaji, Chap. X. For an account from the Mahratha 
point of view, vide Takakhav's Shivaji Maharaj (1921), Chap. XXVIII. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian QisseK 241 

the Siddee of Janjira ^^^ as its representative in that part of the 
country, on condition, that he protected the trade of Bijapur and 
especially the jnlgrims going to Mecca. There was no hereditary 
succession, but, on the death of a Seedee ruler, the next officer in 
cliar^e of thei^: fleet came to the gadi of the district . Being excel- 
lent mariners, their commander was acknowledged as admiral by 
the Bijapur Sultanate, and, on its fall, by the Mogal Empire. 
During these early times, the seas were infested by pirates — 
pirates of all nationalities — English, French, Dutch, Spanish, 
Portuguese, Indian, etc. The Sidee of Janjira was expected by the 
Sultans of Ahmednagar and Bijapur and, later on, by the Mogul 
Emperors, to protect theii trade from these pirates. *^^ 

The Siddee Commander of this island, Yaqut Khan, had 
once attacked Bombay in about 1682 and it was at this time that 
the Parsee Patel, Rustam ji Dorabji, known as Rustam Dorab 
and more popularly known for his bravery as Rustam Gendral 
(corrupted from General), is said to have helped the English in 
defending Bombay.**^^ Some time alter 1694, there appeared in 
Indian waters, an English pirate, named Henry Every. He 
captured Futteh Mahmood, a ship belonging to Abdool Gufoor, 
a rich merchant of Sui'at and also the Ganj Suwaia, belonging 
to the Mogul Emperor, ''^^ which carried a grand-daughter of 
Aurangzeb returning from the pilgrimage of Mecca. So, 

*^* The word originally is Jazireh ^ji)^ '"island" or })erhai)S 
it may be Pers. zanjireh J^Usr-^J i.e., "Ringlets or circles formed on 

the surface of water " (Steingass). There were more than one Janjira on the 
Western Coast of India, e.g., Suwarndurg Janjira, Ratnagiri Janjira, Wijaya- 
durg Janjira (J. L. Mankar's Life and Exploits of Shivaji (1886) p. 106). 

*^^ Vide for these pirates and the Siddhis' work, " The Pirates of 
Malabar and an English woman in India two hundred years ago " by Col. 
John Biddulph, 1907. Col. Biddulph says : " The Seedee of Janjira, who 
styled himself the Mogul's Admiral, received a yearly subsidy of four lakhs for 
convoying the fleet, a duty that he was quite unable to perfonn against 
European desperadoes." (Biddulph's Pirates of Malabar, p. 8). 

*^® Vide " The Parsee Patels of Bombay. Their services to the British 
Government " by Bomanji Byramjee Patell (1876), p. 7 et seq. One cannot 
speak with certainty about the dates. Perhaps this attack was the same 
as that of 1694. 

*" Elliot's History of India, Mmitakhab -ul-Lubab by Khafi Khan. 

242 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

Aurangzeb ordered the Siddee of Janjira to marcli on Bombay, 
and take the English prisoners. President Annesley and the 
rest sixty-three in all were placed in irons and remained so for 
eleven months. This was in about 1695 or 1696. 

In 1648, Shivaji captured ^ome of the forts of the Eajpur 

territory of the Siddee. But the fort of Dandeh 
Shivaji and Rajpuri and some adjoining territories remained 
an e -I j ^^ ^^^ Siddi's hands. The Siddi Yusuf Khan 

ruled at Janjira from 1642 to 1655. He was 
succeeded by Fath Khan, who, in 1659, tried to reconquer his 
forts from Shivaji when the latter was engaged in war with the 
Bijapur army under Afzal Khan. In 1660, when Ali Adil Shah II 
of Bijapur attacked Shivaji in his Panhala fort, Fath Khan invaded 
Konkan. But Shivaji, sending a large army against him. took 
the fort of Dandeh-i Rajpur in 1661 (July or August) and attacked 
Janjira, but, not having a good fleet, failed. In the end, not 
having any succour from Bijapur, Fath Khan made peace with 
Shivaji and gave up Dandeh-i Rajpur by the treaty of peace. But 
the peace was short-timed, because the Siddi, the maintenance of 
whose people of Janjira depended upon the produce of Rajpur 
territories, could not do without the possession of Dandeh -i-Rajpuri. 

By this time, Shivaji had built a fleet of his own to protect 
his coast territories and secure captures of sea-trading ships. The 
Kolis, the Angrias, the Vaghers formed its crew. Two discon- 
tented Siddis — Masri and Daulat Khan — also took service in his 
fleet. With the help of this fleet, Shivaji not only carried on further 
conquests, but began trading himself with some Arabian and other 
ports. In February 1663, he prepared two ships for trade with 
Mocha. In 1665, he sent his trading vessels even to Persia and 
Basra. In February 1665, Shivaji sent a fleet of 55 ships to co- 
operate in the attack on South Canara. He then began plundering 
Mogul ships going to Mecca from Surat, which was then spoken 
of as Dar-ul-hajj, i.e.^ the city of pilgrimage. So, the Moghal 
Emperor's general, Jai Singh, sought, in 1665, the alliance of the 
Siddhi, who was strong in fleet. 

In 1666, when the Moghal Emperor invaded Bijapur, one 
Siddhi, named Sunbal or Sombal fought on the side of the Moghal 
army. When Shivaji made peace with the Moghal Emperor by 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 243 

the treaty of Purandhar, it was arranged that, if Shivaji conquered 
Janjira. he was at liberty to retain it. " Shivaji offered to attempt 
the conquest of Janjira for the Emperor." *^^ In 1669, Shivaji 
attacked Janjira with great force and, in 1670 Fath Khan being 
much hard pressed and not receiving any help from Bijapur was 
on the point of surrendering it, accepting the bribe of a Jagir, &c., 
from Shivaji but his three Abyssinian slaves disliked this surrender, 
roused the Siddi subjects for revolt and, imprisoning Fath Khan, 
applied to Adil Shah at Bijapur and to the Moghal Emperor for 
help. Aurangzib wrote to Shivaji to withdraw from Janjira, and 
the Siddi fleet was transferred from the overlordship of Bijaj:ur to 
that of Delhi, and Siddi Sanbal, one of the leaders of the revolution, 
was created imperial admiral with a mansab and a jagir yieldirg 3 
lakhs of rupees. His two associates, Siddi Qasim (Yaku^) and Siddi 
Khairiyat were given the command of Janjira and the land domi- 
nions respectively. The Siddi fleet was taken into Mogal service 
on the same terms as those under Bijapur. The general title of 
Yaqut Khan was conferred on successive Siddi admirals from 
this time." ^^^ This revolution of the overthrow of Fath Khan 
took place in 1671.420 

In the meanwhile, in 1670, Shivaji had arranged to seize 
Surat with the help of his fleet and started, but he ceased proceeding 
further, hearing that the Killedar of Surat, who had offered to 
help him was playing a fraud. In March 16 1 Siddi Qassim, 
surnamod Yaqut Khan, surprized Shivajis Marathas when they 
were in the deep enjoyment of their Holi festival and re-took 
Dandeh-i Kajpur. Yaqut reconquered also the other seven forts 
taken by Shivaji. In September 16. 1, Shivaji sent messengers 
to the English at Bombay to seek their aid in his attempt to re- 
conquer Dandeh-i Rajpuri. The Council at Surat dissuaded the 
authorities at Bombay from helping Shivaji, because they thought 
that his possession of this fort near Surat would be a threat to 
their naval power. In 16 2, Aurangzib sent a fleet of 36 ships 
from Surat to help the Siddi at Dandeh-i Rajpur. This fleet 
destroyed a large part of Shivaji's fleet, six ships f f which he 
sheltered in the harbour of Bombay. The English winked at that, 

"^ Sarkar's Shivaji, 1st ed. p. 344. *^^8arkar's Shivaji, pp. 341-42. 
*2o Ibid p. 342 11. Sarkar thinks that the date given l>v Kli-i fi Khan is wrong-. 

244 f Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

and, lest they may incur the displeasure of Aurangzib, pretended 
and represented, that they themselves " had attached them as 
compensation for the plunder of their Kajpur factory in 1660*^^ 
(by Shivaji)." At this time, both Aurangzib and Shivaji courted 
the favour of the English to have the help of the English fleet 
at Bombay. Aurangzib's fleet appeared near Bombay in January 
1673 with that view, but the English preferred neutrality in 
order to watch events. But at last they were, as it were, driven to 
take sides. 

In August 1673, the French sold 80 ships and ammunition 
to Shivaji. They had similarly helped him in 1670 by selling him 
40 guns during the seige of Pehderla. Now, there came the Dutch 
on the scene. Their commodore, Rudolf Van Gaen, offered, in 
March 1673, the help of their fleet of 22 ships for the capture of 
Dandeh-i Rajpur, if Shivaji gave them the help of 3,000 soldiers, 
whereby he can capture Bombay. But Shivaji refused this 
arrangement, especially because he disliked the Dutch. 

In 1673, the Mogul fleet of 30 ships under Sanbal returned 
from Surat to Dandeh-i Rajpur, and, on 10th October, entering 
Bombay harbour, landed parties on the Pen and Nagotha river 
banks to destroy the Mahratha villages there. In 1674, the Siddi 
applied to the English to bring about a peace between him and 
Shivaji. In March 1674, Siddi Sanbal attacked the Mahrathas 
near Ratnagiri, but the Mahrathas were victorious. In 1675, 
Shivaji arranged for a joint sea and land attack on Dandeh-i 
Rajpuri and laid a siege, which, at the end of the year, was raised on 
the arrival of Sanbal's fleet. It was laid again in 1675. But 
Sanbal's fleet compelled him to raise it in the end of 1676. In j 
May 1676, Siddi Sanbal, having quarrelled with Aurangzeb, was J 
replaced by Siddi Qasim, surnamed Yaqut Khan. It was this | 
Qasim (Yaqut Khan) who had forced Shivaji's general Moro Pant 
to raise the siege of Janjira in December 1676. But still Sanbal did 
not deliver up his fleet to Qasim. In 1677, Qasim was again ordered 
from Delhi to give up the fleet but he disobeyed the order. At 
onetime, when both these admirals were in Bombay, the English 
interfered and settled their affairs and " Qasim was installed as 
admiral at the end of October"^22 (1777)^ He continued the fight 

*2i Sarkar's Shivaji p. 347 ^^2 j^^^ p 353^ 


jRustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh • 245 

against Shivaji and, in April 1678, returned to Bombay to rest 
during the Monsoons. His fleet was anchored at Mazagon. Shivaji, 
coming from the land side, tried to set fire to the fleet but could 
not do so, as the Portuguese refused to let his men pass through 
their territories. In October 1678, Shivaji again sent his admiral 
Daulat Khan to bombard Janjira. Siddi Qasim could not go at 
once to relieve the island as he was without money from the 
Mogul authorities at Surat to pay his men. But, in February 1680, 
he went out from his Bombay anchorage. In March 1680 the 
English entered into an agreement with Shivaji to remain strictly^ 
neutral and not to allow the Siddi' s fleet to be sheltered in the 
Bombay waters during the Monsoons. 

In the meantime, some circumstances had begun rising to 
create some differences between Shivaji and the English. In 
April 1672, Shivaji had an eye upon the rocky Island of Kenneri 
(Khanderi), 1|^ miles in length and J mile in breadth, about 11 
miles south of Bombay and 30 miles north of Janjira, with a view 
to erect a fort there, which may, to some extent, act as a counter- 
poise against the rocky fort of Janjira. The English President 
at Surat objected, as that may affect and endanger the trade from 
Bombay. Both, the English and the Siddi, appearing there with 
their fleets, Shivaji stopped the fortification. But, later 
on, in August 1679, Shivaji renewed that project and, on 15th 
September, his adpiiral, known as the Mai Nayak ( v-Xi U ^ ) 
i.e., the chief of the Sea (Arab. mae= water), took possession of the 
island with 4 small guns and commenced fortifying it. The Deputy 
Governor of Bombay protested, saying that Kennery belonged to 
Bombay, but the protest had no effect. So a fight began. A sea- 
battle was fought on 18th October 1679 between Shivaji's fleet and 
the English fleet. Though the English lost several ships through the 
cowardice of some English soldiers on board, in the end, they were 
victorious and Shivaji's fleet ran and took shelter in the Nagothana 
creek. At the end of November, a Siddi fleet joined and helped the 
English in bombarding Kennery. But the cost of money and men 
(Englishmen) in the continued naval fight w^as so heavy, that the 
English thought, on 25th October 1879, to withdraw honorably 
and, either settle matters with Shivaji or throw the burden of fight 
upon the Siddi of Janjira and upon the Portuguese of Bassein whose 

246 ' Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

foreign trade was likely to be endangered by Shiyaji's occupation of 
Kennery. The English were especially apprehensive of an attack, in 
reprisal, by Shivaji upon Bombay itself. The apprehension came 
to be true. Shivaji sent 4,000 men to Kallian Bhimri (Bhiwardi) 
with a view to land in Bombay via Thana. The Portuguese who 
then occupied that part of the country prevented their passage. 
So, Shivaji's troops marched to their port of Panvel opposite 
Trombay in October 1679. The Deputy Governor of Bombay 
was prepared to fight boldly but the authorities of the Surat 
Headquarters thought it advisable to settle the dispute with 
Shivaji, and, in the end, Shivaji was permitted to fortify Kennery. 
The English ships were withdrawn from Kennery in January 1680. 
Then the Janjira Siddi occupied and fortified Underi, which 
is close to Kenneri and is about a mile in circumference,*^^ on 9th 
January 1680. Shivaji's admiral Daulat Khan attacked Underi 
but to no purpose. " Underi continued in Siddi hands throughout 
Shambhaji's reign, and neutralized the Maratha occupation of 
Khanderi, the two islands bombardins; each other. "^^^ 

The Qisseh says, that Kustam Manock was very hospitably 
received at Dandeh-i-Rajpur by Sidee Yaquba 
TheSiddis. ( ^^^ j_s* ^^ c. 395). He is spoken of as a 
Siddee. So, I will speak here of these Siddis, 
who played a prominent part in the history of Central India. From 
Orme's account about these people, we gather the following 
particulars about their arrival and rise in India : They were 
natives of Abyssinia. At first, they came to India as traders 
and adventurers, and it was a king of Viziapore in the 
south who exalted them by giving them high posts. " The natural 
<50urage of these people, not unmixed with ferocity, awed the envy 
of their rivals At the time of Sevagi's revolt from Vizia- 
pore, three of the principal provinces of the kingdom were governed 
by Siddees, of whom the admiral of the fleet was one, and had, 
under his jurisdiction, a considerable extent of the sea coast to 
the north and south of Gingerah, when Sevagi got possession of 
Dunda Rajapore."*25 Later on, after some fight with Shivaji, they 

*2^ The two islands are known as Annery Kenneri (a>i^;0 h*\^ ) 

*2* Sarkar's Shivaji, 1st p. 362, 2nd p. 321. 

*^^ Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire by Robert Orme, p. 56. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 247 

gave their services with their fleet to Aurangzib, but they " reserved 
the property of Gingerah, and the right to whatsoever they might 
recover from their former fiefs, now lost to Viziapore." *^'* 

Some Dates about the Siddi's Rule at Rajpuri, Dandeh and 


The Siddis settled at Raj pur and Janjira. Early 16th Century. 

One of the Siddis appointed Governor of Dandeh-i 
Rajpuri by the Ahmednagar Sultanate. Early 17th Century. 

Bijapur Sultanate acknowledged the Siddi ruler as 

its representative in that part of the country . . 1636 

Shivaji captured all of the Siddi's forts on the main- 
land except Dandeh-i Rajpuri . . . . . . 1648 

Siddi Yusuf Khan ruled 1642 to 1655 

Siddi Fateh Khan tried to regain his forts from 

Shivaji, when Shivaji was fighting with Afzal Khan. 1659 

Fath Khan invaded Konkan when Shivaji's fort of 

Panhala was besieged by Ali Adil Shah II of Bijapur 1660 

Shivaji conquered Dandeh-i Rajpuri and attacked 
Janjira but failed . . . . . . . . . . 1661 

Fath Khan, hard pressed, made peace with Shivaji, 

formally ceding to Shivaji Dandeh-i Raj pur . . 1661 

Shivaji built his own fleet and began trading with 

Arabian ports . . . . . . . . . . . . 1663 

Shivaji prepared his ships to co-operate for an attack 

on Canara . . . . . . . . . . . . 1664 

Shivaji traded with Persia, Basra, &c 1665 

Shivaji sent a fleet of 85 frigates for the conquest 

of South Canara February 1665 

Jai Singh, the Mogul general, sought alliance with the 

Siddi to w^ithstand Shivaji's attacks on Mogul 

Pilgrim ships from Surat to Mecca 1665 

A Siddhi general, named Sanbal, fought on behalf of 

the Moghal Emperor against Bijapore . . . . 1666 

Shivaji attacked Janjira . . . . . . . . . . 1669 

^"a Ibid p. 57. 

248 Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh 

Shivaji started with his fleet to capture Surat but 
stopped half way . . . . . . . . . . 1670 

Kevolution at Janjira. Fath Khan, who was on the 
point of surrendering it, was imprisoned by his 
people who then sought for help from Adil Shah of 
Bijapore and from Aurangzib . . . . . . 1671^^®" 

Siddi Qassim, surnamed Yaqut Khan, surprized 
Shivaji's Mahrathas during their Holi festivities 
and re-took Dandeh-Kajpur and other forts . . 1671 

Shivaji asked the help of the English at Bombay for 
his proposed reconquest of Dandeh^Rajpur but 
was refused . . . . . . . . . . . . 1671 

Shivaji began fortifying Kenneri island but was 
stopped by the English and the Siddis . . . . 1672 

Shivaji's fleet defeated by Aurangzib's fleet that 
had come to help the Siddi 1672 

Mogul fleet appeared in Bombay waters peace- 
fully January 1673 

The Dutch offered help of fleet to Shivaji for capturing 
Dandeh, if Shivaji gave help of 3,000 men to them 
for capturing Bombay. Shivaji refused . . March 1673 

The French sold 80 guns to Shivaji . . . . August 1673 

A Mogul fleet of 30 ships, under Sambal, came 
towards Bombay side, and, entering Bombay 
waters, destroyed Mahratha villages at Pen and 
Nagothana . . . . . . . . . . . . 1673^ 

The Siddi attacked the Mahrathas at Ratnagiri, 

but with no success . . . . . . . . . . 1674 

Shivaji arranged for a joint sea and land attack upon 
Dandeh-Rajpur and laid siege on Janjira but not 
successfully . . , , . . . . . . . . 1675 

Janjira again besieged unsuccessfully . . . . . . 1676 

Siddi Sambal, having quarrelled with the Moguls, 
was replaced by Siddi Qasim, surnamed Yaqut 
Khan May 1676 

*^^ Sarkar says that the date was 1674 and that Khafi Khan's date 1671 
is wrong. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 249 

The English interfered between the quarrels of the two 
admirals and Qasim (Yaqut Khan) was instal- 
led as Admiral October 1677 

Qasim Yaqut in Bombay waters with his fleet at 
Mazagon April 1678 

Shivaji's admiral Daulat Khan bombarded 
Janjira October 1678 

Shi vaji renewed the project of fortifying the Kennery 
island 1679 

A sea-battle, fought between Shivaji and the English. 
English victorious, and Shivaji's fleet fled to 

Nagothana 18th October 1679 

The Siddi and English fleets bombarded Kennery . . 1679 
The English, to prevent further cost and loss of English- 
men in the naval fight, stopped fighting 
further 1679 

Shivaji arranged to attack Bombay via Thana and 

Panvel 1679 

Qasim (Yaqut Khan), who could not go out earher 
for want of funds, left Bombay waters to attack 
theMahrathas .. .. .. .. February 1680 

Agreement between the English and Shivaji that the 
English were not to allow the Siddi's fleet in Bombay 
waters during the Monsoons and that Shivaji may 
hold Kennery March 1680 

The Siddi occupied and fortified Underi 9th July 1680 

Siddi Yaquba, or Yaqut, referred to in the Qisseh is the 

Siddi Qasim, otherwise known as Yaqut Khan. 

Yaquba c. 395. It seems that, either the author of the Qisseh, 

Jamshed Kaikobad, or his copyists, misread the 

last letter ey ' t ' f or i^ ' b '. Such misreadings are not imusual. 

So, Yaqut became Yaqub and then Yaquba for respectability's 

sake. He was appointed, at first, the Governor of the adjoining 

rock-fort of Janjira and, later on, in 1677, admiral and Governor 

of Dandeh-i Raj pur, which he had re-captured from the hands of 

250 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

Shivaji. We gather tlie following about him from Khafi Khan.*-" 
He, Siddi Sanbal and Siddi Khairyat, were three Abyssinian slaves 
of Fath Khan, the general of Bijapur who held Danda-Rajpuri and 
Janjira. When he was hard pressed by Shivaji who attacked these 
places, Fath Khan was, as said above, on the point of surrendering 
these places to him but these three slave officers who managed the 
affairs of the island resolved to revolt against Fath Khan and to take 
him prisoner and defend the position (1671 A.C.). Siddi Sambal died 
some time after, declaring Siddi Yaqut as his successor in chief 
power, and " enjoined all the other Abyssinians to pay him a loyal 
and cheerful obedience. "*^^ Khafi Khan thus speaks of Yakub 
Khan " Sidi Yaqut was distinguished among his people for 
courage, benignty and dignity. He now strove more than ever 
to collect ships of war, to strengthen the fortress, and to ward 
off naval attacks."*^^ Some time after, he re-conquered Danda- 
Rajpuri from the hands of Shivaji when the latter had retired to 
a little distant place to celebrate the Holi Holidays. 

In the Akham-i-Alamgiri, i.e. the Anecdotes of Aurangzib, 
he is spoken of as the Thanahdar of the place. We read : From 
the news-letter of Machhli-Bandar (Maslipatam) , the Emperor 
learnt that Siddi Yaqut Khan, the thanahdar of Danda-Rajpuri, 
had inserted a petition under his own seal in the news-letter 
stating that if the Collectorship (mutasaddi-gari) of Danda-Rajpuri 
were conferred on him, he would render far better service than 
his predecessors in increasing the prosperity of the place and in 
sending the imperial Customs revenue. Across the sheet of the 
news-letter, the Emperor wrote: "For a long time I have known 
of this aggressive and self-willed spirit of Siddi Yaqut Khan."^^^ 
Prof. Sarkar says : " All the Siddis (Abyssinians) holding 
chargo of Danda-Rajpuri after 1660 bore the title of Yaqut Khan 
from the Mughal Government, and acted as the Mughal admirals 
on the Bombay coast. Khafi Khan often narrates their history 
(II, 225-228, 453-54). Danda Rajpuri is a town on the Bombay 

^" Muntakhab-ul-lubab of Muhammad Hashin Khafi Khan (Elliot's 
History of India, Vol. VII, p. 289) says, that each of the three Siddi officers 
had 10 well-trained Abyssinian slaves under them. *^^ Ibid, p. 290. *^® Ibid, 
p. 290. *^° Anecdotes of Aurangzib (Enghsh translation of Ahkam-i- 
Alamgiri, ascribed to Hamid-ud-din Khan), by Jadmiath Sarkar, 2nd Ed. 
of 1926, pp. 124-25, No. 66. 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 251 

coast facing the island of Janjira which was the stronghold 

of the Abyssinians One Siddi Yaqut was collector of Danda- 

Rajpuri in 1702 (U.A. 455)".«i 

We find from the history of this time, that as said above, there 
was a Revolution at the place in 1671, which brought in Siddi 
Qasim, as Yaqut Khan to power. Some time after, he was asked 
by Aurangzib to attack Bombay and drive away the English from 
there. Grant Duf!, in his " History of the Mahrathas while speak- 
ing of the events of 1689 A.C. says : " About this period the 
attention of the Emperor was attracted to the English, and in 
consequence of piracies which began to be committed by indivi- 
duals, several of the factories belonging to the East India Company 
were seized.*^^ ^his was no uncommon measure, for Aurangzib 
to adopt when any of the Moghul ships were taken, and he more 
than once threw the President at Surat into confinement ; on the 
present occasion the Siddee was ordered to drive them from Bom- 
bay. Yakoot made a descent upon the island, and possessed 
himself of Mazagon, Sion and Mahim, but could make no impression 
on the fort. The attack, however continued, until the English 
appeased Aiu-angzib by the usual expedients of bribes to the 
courtiers and the humblest submission. The Seedee quitted the 
island after he had remained upon it nearly a year.""*-^^ We read 
as follows on the subject: " The invasion of Bombay by the Sidi is 
described in a letter from Bombay to the Court of Directors of 
January 25, 1698. The Sidi landed with 20,000 men, seized the 
small fort at Sivri (or Se^vri), plundered Mahim, and hoisted his flag 
in Mazagon fort, which had been abandoned. By February 15, 

*^^ KSarkar's Shivaji, p. 125. "" " The English traders began at that 
time to assert themselves and to claim the right of fortifying their ' factories ' 
or commercial stations. Aurangzib's hostile attitude was also due in part to 
the action of the Interlopers who began about 1680 to trade with the Blast 
in open opposition to the East India Company. The Mughals were unable 
or unwilling to distinguish between the rival companies, or indeed between 
English merchants and English pirates like John Avery and held the 
President and Council responsible for all the acts of their countrymen in 
the East." (Foot-note of the Editor of the revised Edition of 1921 of Grant 
Duff's History of the Mahrattas.) 

*3^ Grant Duff's History of the Mahrathas, revised by S. M. Edwardea 
(1921), Vol. I, pp. 274-76. 

252 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

1689, he was master of the whole island, except the castle and a 
stretch of land to the south of it. From April to September 
1689, Bombay was in very sorry plight. In December, Child 
despatched two envoys to Aurangzeb to sue for peace, the request 
for which was aided indirectly by certain external political factors ; 
and finally in February 1690, the Emperor granted a n^vf firman 
to the Company, which had to pay him Rs. 1,50,000 in satisfac- 
tion of Mughal losses, and to promise to expel ' Mr. Child, who 
did the disgrace.' The Sidi finally left Bombay on June 8, 1890, 
nearly a year and a half after his first landing at Sivri.*^* 

We gather the following facts from the above account of the 
Siddi's attack of Bombay : — 

1. The Siddhi's sack of Bombay occurred early in January 

1689. (The Despatch informing the Directors is dated 
25th January 1689). 

2. The Siddhi who attacked Bombay was Yaqut Khan. 

3. Child, the chief factor at Surat, sent two envoys to the 

Court of Aurangzib to sue for peace in December 1689. 

4. Aurangzib was won over " by the usual expedients of 

bribes to th^ courtiers and humblest submission." 
In " the humblest submission " must be included 
rich presents to the King himself. 

5. Aurangzib thereupon issued a firman in favour of the 


6. The Siddi's occupation of Bombay lasted from early 

in January 1689 to 8th June 1690. 
The Qisseh says, that Rustam Manock went there for enjoy- 
ment (tafarrurj). But, one cannot understand. 
The Object ^hy Rustam Manock should part company from 
■of the Visit. his English factor and go for enjoyment to such 

an out of the way place like Dandeh Rajpuri, 
about 40 miles from Bombay by sea. We find from the above 
account in some details that the history of the place shows that the 
English had a factory there and that they had some hand in the 
■operations there between Shivaji and the Siddi. So, it seems that 
Rustam Manock had gone there for some business as a broker of 

*^* Ibid, p. 275 n. 1. Copied with some alterations and omissions from 
>the Bombay City Gazetteer, by S. M. Edwardes, Vol. II pp. 83-85 

Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh 253 

-the English factory at Surat. Yaqut had just come to power there 
and so Rustam went to him for business {vide above p. 243). 

(b) Rustam Manock's Visit to Damaun. 

According to the Qisseh, Rustam went from Dandeh-i-Rajpuri 
to Damaun. It does not say why he went there. But he must 
have gone there, not for any sight seeing, but on business. Rustam 
Manock was, besides being the broker of the EngHsh, also 
the broker of the Portuguese. In the Qisseh, in two places 
he is spoken of as the broker of the Portuguese. So, he seems to 
have gone there for business. The welcome extended to him 
by the Portuguese Government during this visit and the second 
visit after the capture of an Indian ship of Surat by the Portuguese 
and the welcome extended to him at Goa itself, when he went 
there later on, show that he was officially connected with the 
Portuguese. So, it appears that he went to Damaun on business 
and not on pleasure. 

(c) Rustam Manock's Visit of Naosari. 

Rustam's visit to Naosari on his way to Surat from Damaun 
was not for any business purpose, or for pleasure, but for a reHgious 
purpose. He had gone on an important errand, and so, on its success, 
he went to this town, which was on his way to Surat to offer thanks- 
giving to God at the fire-temple there. We find ancient Iranian 
kings observing such a custom. "^^^^ He had, at first, a sacred bath. 
With the orthodox, a long journey, wherein one cannot observe 
all religious rites and ceremonies, necessitated such a bath.'*^* 
He had a bath of the kind and then he went to the Fire-temple,"*^ 

43*a Vide my Gujarati paper on the History of the Fire Temple 
of Adar Gushoop, in my Iranian Essays, Part I, pp. 125-148. 

^^^ Vide my " Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees," pp. 
149-51. Vide Tacitus' Annals (Bk. XV 24) for some religious scruples for 
travelling by water among the ancient Iranians. 

*^^ The Naosari Fire-temple, at this time, was that for the sacred Fire 
of Iranshah, which is now located at Udwara. This Sacred Fire was carried 
there in about 1516 and remamed there till about 1741. {Vide my " Few 
Events in the Early History of the Parsis and their Dates" pp. 87-88.) The 
present Sacred Fire at Naosari was installed on 2nd December 1765 (Parsee 
Prakash I, p. 45). 

254 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

to offer a thanks-giving prayer for his successful mission to the- 
Mogul Court/37 

Sir Streynsham Master who visited Surat in 1672 refers to 

Naosari. In his account of his visit of Surat, 

Sir Streyn- given in a letter, dated Bombay January 18, 

Z'^FTetLpk 1671, (».e. new system 1672), addressed to England 

at Naosari. he gives an account of the Parsis. The letter is 

given in full by Col. Henry Yule in his diary of 

WilHam Hedges. ^^-"^ Therein he says about the Fire : 

"At the said place of Nausaree their Chief Priests reside, 
where tis said they have their Holy fire which they brought (with) 
them from their Owne Country, and is never to goe out. They 
keepe it so constantly supplyed ; they had a church in Surra tt; 
but the Tumultuous Rabble of the zelott Moors destroyed and 
tooke it from them when they were furious on the Hindooes. They 
haveseverall buryall Places here abouts, which are built of Stone 
in the wide fields, wherein they lay the dead Bodys exposed to 
the open air soe that the Ravenous fowles may and do feed upon 
them." 43« 

According to Capt. Hawkins, the river on which Naosari 

stands (the river Purna) was much navigable 

Hawkins on in former times. With the help of this river- 

aosan an is communication, Naosari commanded a great 
river, ' *= 

calico trade. While referring to the gates of Surat, 

^^' For some particulars about this town which is the Head -quarters of 
a large class of the Parsee priest- hood, vide my paper on ' ' The Petition of 
Dastur Kaikobad to Emperor Jahangir ' ' (Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental 
Institute, No. 13, pp. 181-82). The District of Naosari contamed 
the towns of Mulere and Salere. The Mahumudi coins of Gujarat were struck 
at Mulere. We read : " The Mahmudis were the coins of the independent 
Muslim kings of Gujarat. After its conquest by Akbar, the coinage of 
rupaiyas was introduced at the royal mints of Ahmedabad and some time 
after of Surat. The coinage of Mahmudis was continued by Pratap Sah at the 
fort of Mulher till 1637 ; his Mahumudis were struck in Akbar's name. Five 
mahumudis made two rupees." (The Empire of the Great Mogol, by J. S. 
Hoyland (1928), p. 29, n 42 translated from the Dutch work of De Laet, 
and entitled *' Description of India and Fragrents of Indian History." 

*^^ The Diary of William (afterwards Sir William) Hedges, by Colonel 
Henry Yule. Printed for the Hakluji; Society, Vol. II (1888), pp. 222-255. 

^3» Ibid, p. 315. 

Ruslam Manock and ike Fersian Qisseh 255- 

Hawkins says: ''A third (gate leads) to Nonsary (Naosari), a 
town 10 cose (kos) off where is made a great store of calico having 
a fair river coming to it." 

The Qisseh says that, when Rustam Manock, on his way 

from Aurangzeb's Court of Surat, went to Naosari 

Noshirwan, after visiting Dandeh-Rajpuri and Damaun, he 

tm^Z^Niomrl ^^^^^ ^* ^^^ ^^^^^ of a reFative (khish c. 406), 

named Noshirwan. Who was this Noshirwan ? 

The Gujarati translator adds the name Meherji after his name 

and gives the name as Noshirwan Meherji. So if we take the 

name as given by the translator as correct, who was this 

Noshirwan Meherji ? There were several persons of the name of 

Noshirwan Meherji, known during the time of Rustam Manock 

(1635-1721) :— 

1. One Noshirwan Meherji Patel is referred to (in a document 
dated 26th September 1686), in the matter of the dispute between 
the priests and the laymen of Naosari.'^''^ The visit to Naosari. 
was in about 1701 A.C. So, one may say that, perhaps, it was 
at this Nosherwan Meherji's that Rustam Manock was a guest. 
But one thing may be suggested against this view. It is, that 
it appears from the document, that Noshirwan Meherji was a layman 
(Behedin) and Rustam Manock was of a priestly family. So, how 
can they be related to one another ? But we know that though 
the priestly class did not give their daughters to those of the laymen 
class, they took theirs in marriage. So possibly, this relationship 
was that caused by the marriage of a son of Rustam Manock's 
stock of family with a daughter of Noshirwan Meherji's stock of 

2. Again there was another Noshirwan Meherji (Chandna)- 
living during the time of Rustam Manock (1635-1721). One 
may object to this name on the ground that Rustam Manock 
belonged to the sect of the Bhagaria priests while Noshirwan Meherji 
(Chandna) belonged to the opposite sect of the Minocher Homji 
priests. But, it may be said that the relationship by marriage 
between the two families may have been made, before the sacerdotal 
schism, which took place in about 1686. So, it is very likely that 

^*» Parsi Prakash I, pp. 19 and 845-46. 

256 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

the NosMrwan Meherji of the Qisseh, whose hospitahty at Naosari 
Rustam Manock accepted was this Noshirwan Meherji. He may 
have been related to Rustam Manock by marriage. 

3. There lived at Naosari a third Noshirwan Meherji during 
the time of Rustam Manock (1635-1721). He is Noshirwan Meherji 
referred to in the Bhagarsath Genealogy by Mr. Rustamji Jamaspji 
Dastur Meherji Rana.^^^ But this person died in Samvat 1735 
(1679 A.C.).**2 So he cannot be the host of Rustam Manock in 
about 1701 A.C. when Rustam visited Naosari. 

From all these considerations, I think, that the Noshirwan 
Meherji of the Qisseh is the second of the three Noshirwan Meherjis 
referred to above. Again, the family tradition says, that this 
Noshirwan Meherji's family was pretty well ofi and had some 
property in Surat.**^ So, there is a greater probability of this 
Noshirwan receiving Rustam Manock as his guest. 


Rustam Manock's Visit of Goa to get Osman Chalibee*s ship 
released from the hands of the Portuguese. 

Of all the places on the Western coast of India, Bombay and 

Goa were said to be the most important. So, 

Goa. even the French had an eye upon Goa, later on. 

A French officer, Stanislas Lefeber, is said to have 

reported : " Bombay et Goa sont sans contredit les deux pointes 

^les plus essentielles de la cote occidentale de la Presq'ile de I'lnde."*** 

Goa was in the time of Rustam Manock, as it is even now, 

the centre of Portuguese power and rule. From very early times, 

its excellent position on the Western coast of India attracted 

441 an^ii^'ti't iicfiitT oi3i^^l«< «l*?llqc^l p. 118. Vide its English version 
" The Genealogy of the Naosari priests" issued for private circulation by 
Naoroz Parvez, with an introduction by Sir George Birdwood, p. 118. 1 
am thankful to Mr. Mahyar N. Kutar for suggesting to me this name. 

**^ Vide the above Gujarati Genealogy, p. 244, col. 1 . 

**^ I am thankful to Mr. Rustamji Merwanji Karkaria of Naosari for this 
information. Vide also the Navar Fehrest compiled by Ervad Mahyar 
N. Kutar, Vol. 1, 29. Navar, No. 235, mentions this name. He is spoken of 
as Suratio, i.e. of Surat. 

^** Quoted by Dr. Gerson Da Cunha, in his paper, on " The Enghsh and 
"^their Monuments at Goa " Jour. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XIII p. 109. 

Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh * 257 

different conquerors to this part of the country, h wn.^ MMini 
by the Arab traveller Ibn Batuta in the 14th century/^^" In 1469, 
it passed into the hands of the Bahmani kings of the Deccan. Then, 
it passed into the hands of the Bijapur kings. In 1510, a Portuguese 
fleet under Albuquerque captured it. It was re-captured for a 
short time by the king of Bijapur, but Albuquerque reconquered 
it shortly after. The early traders spoke of it, on account of its 
wealth, as "the Golden Goa" (Goa Dourada) and said: "Who- 
ever had seen Goa need not see Lisbon. "^^^ tj^^ Portuguese based 
their dominion in India on conquest by the sword. They laboured- 
to consolidate it by a proselytizing organization which throws 
all other missionary efforts in India into shade." *^^« It is the 
" old Goa" that is referred to in the Qisseh. It was in about 1759^ 
that Panjim or New Goa was founded. . Now the story of the 
capture of a Mahomedan ship by the Portuguese is briefly as 
follows : 

There was at Surat, a merchant, named Osman Chahbee. . 

His ship, while returning from Jedda, was captured 

The Event of by the Portuguese. The Nawab of Surat sent 

Ship^^bv^ the ^^^ Rustam and requested him to get the ship 

Portuguese. released from the hands of the Portuguese. 

Eustam complied with the request. He, at 

first, went to Damaun, but the Governor of the place referred 

him to the authorities at Goa. So, he went to Bassein and 

from there went to Goa. The Governor- General of Goa referred 

the matter to the Home authorities at Portugal, and, in the end, 

the ship was released and handed over to Osman Chalibee through 

Rustam. Now, who was this Osman Chalibee ? 

^**« The Travels of Ibn Batuta, by Rev. Samuel Lee (1829), p. 164. 

*" Encyclopsedia Britannica, 8th Ed., Vol. X, p. 706, col. 2. The Mis- 
sionary efforts of the Portuguese reminds one of their " Inquisition " at 
Goa. Dr. Fryer speaks of it as "a terrible tribunal " and says of a place 
known as the " Sessions house " as " the bloody prison of the Inquisition '* 
(Fryer's New Account of India and Persia, Letter IV, Chapter II, pp. 148 
and 155). Niccolao Manucci refers to the town of Bassein, which is refer- 
red to in the Qisseh and says that there was an Inquisition there also. 
(Storia Do Mogor or Mogul India, translated by WiUiam Irvine, Vol. HI 
(1909), p. 18L 

*^^« Ibid. 

258 Bustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

The merchant, Osman ChaHbi, for whose ship Rustam 
Manock went to Goa, seems to be a descendant 
Osman Chali- oi the family of a celebrated Turkish admiral, 
bi. named Sidi Ali Chalibi, who was driven, in 1554, 

by a great storm to the shores of Gujarat and wa*s 
forced to touch Damaun, from where, some time after, he went 
to Surat. On making inquiries at Surat, if there were any descen- 
dants of Osman ChaHbi there at present, I learn that no trace can 
be found of them. But there still exists at Surat a mas j id bearing 
Chalibi's name. Mr. Kavasji Burjorji Vakil, a leading Parsee of 
Surat, in reply to my inquiries wrote to me thus in his letter of 
24th July 1928 : "I am sorry I have not been able to get any useful 
information on the point. It may, however, interest you to know 
that there is still a musjid existing in Sodagarwad*^^ locahty, behind 
the City Municipality, which is known as Chalibini Masjid.^"*^ It 
is being managed now by a Mahomedan gentleman, aged about 80 
named Sumadbhai Ahmedbhai Misri. I made due inquiries from 
him, but, he too, though advanced in years, has not been able to 
give any information regarding the Chalibi family or Usman 
Chalibi mentioned, in your letter." 

Baron Von Hammer speaks of one Chalibi as " Sidi Al Chalebi, 
Captain of the fleet of Sultan Suleiman." *^^ 

0-7. AT r^T Reinaud also speats of him as Sidi Ali-Tchelebi. 

Sidi Ah Cha- ^ 

libi, the founder He seems to have been the founder of the Chalibi 

of the Surat Cha- family of Surat. He was called by others, and he 

spoke of himself as, Capudan, i.e., Captain, from 

a similar Portuguese word. M. Reinand refers 

to him in his Geographic d'Aboulfeda.^"^^ Besides being a great 

admiral, he was somewhat of a scholar, a poet and a writer. He 

had published a book of his travels called Merat-ul Memalik, 

(c-^IUa/) vi^ly) i.e., Mirror of Countries.^^^ An extract from this 

**^ i.e., the street of merchants. **' i.e., the Mosque of ChaHbi. 

*^^ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. Ill, No. 35. (Novem- 
ber 1834)1). 545. 

**^ Geographic d'Aboulfeda, traduit par M. Reinaud (1848). Tome 
I et II. Introduction p. CLXV. 

^^" Vide Dr. Rieu's Catalogue of Turkish MSS. p. 120, for an account 
of this author of Merat-al -Memalik. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 259 

work is published in the Transactions of our^^' Society, which, for 
some time, had ceased to be published here and were published in 
London, at the time; when our original Society of Bombay became 
a branch of the London Royal Asiatic Society.-'^^ j^ Silvestre de 
Sacy has referred to this work and given a few particulars about 
this admiral and author.'*^^ The account in our Journal is from the 
pen of the celebrated orientalist of the time, Joseph Hammer of 
Vienna. It was read on 31st October 1815, and is entitled, " Notice 
and Extracts of the Miritolmemalik (Mirror of Countries) of Sidi 
Ali Capoodawn." This work was first translated into German 
by M. de Diez, the Prussian envoy at Constantinople in 1815, 
under the title of Denkwiirdigkeiten von Asien (i.e., Memorable 
Events of Asia). Then M. Morris has translated this work into 
Erench from the German of M. de Diez in the Journal Asiatique.'*^* 

He has also written another work on a nautical subject 
Tinder the title of Mohit ( lajts-* ) i. e. ocean. This work was 
finished by him at Ahmedabad in December 1554."^^^ 

*^^ Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay, Vol. II, published 
in London, 1820, pp. 1-14. *^^ For this early history of the B. B. R. Asiatic 
Society, vide my "A GHmpse into the work of the B. B. R. A. Society during 
the last 100 years from a Parsee point of View," p. 2. *^^ " Journal des 
Savants " de Mars 1821, quoted in Journal Asiatique. (Tome IX pp. 27-8). 

454 "Miroirde pays, ou relations des Voyages de Sidi Aly fils d' Housain, 
nommee ordinairement Katibi Roumi, amiral de Soliman II (Journal 
Asiatique 1826, Tome IX, pp. 27-56, 65-97, 129-174, 193-217, 280-299). For 
the references to M. de Diez and M. Morris, vide Ibid, p. 28, 

"5 Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, Vol. Ill, p. 545. For the 
reference to Ahmedabad, vide p. 545. Mr. Mancherji P. Kharegat, to 
whom I had sent the article on Mohit, hoping that it may interest 
him from the point of view of his study of Iranian calendar, has 
kindly drawn my attention to an interestmg fact, and I give it below 
in his own words as it may interest othei-s also. "The article on 

Mohit has been very interesting reading for various reasons, but 

especially, because it has cleared up a point, viz., why the peculiar arrange- 
ment of the Kadimi Calendar, in which the days are numbered, instead of 
being divided into months, is called Darya-i Xauroz. I knew that both 
Mulla Firuz and Cowasji Patel had said, that it was because mariners used 
it m that form, but they had given no authority ; and I was inclined to regard 

their remarks as mere guess-work But the article in question proves, 

beyond doubt, that, at least, upto the 16th century,the Yazdagardi Calendar 
was actually used in this form by sea-farers ; the present article also shows 
that they were inclined to substitute the Jalali calendar for it even then. 

260 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Hammer thus speaks of this Sidi Ali : " The Author, Captain 

of the Egyptian fleet of Soleimaun, the great Otto- 

What brought man emperor, had received orders to carry fifteen 

Chalibi^L sfm- Turkish ships from Bassora down the Persian 

bay. Grulf and up the Arabian to Suez. But not being 

well acquainted, as it seems, either with the 

monsoons or with the coast of India, he lost his way and his fleet 

and was obliged to make his way overland from Guzerat, by 

Hind, Sind, Zaboulestaun, Bedakhshaun, Khottaun, Tooran, 

Khorasaun, Khowarezem, Kipjak, Pak, and Asia Minor to 

Constantinople. "^^^ 

According to what Sidi Ali says of himself in his book, 
he " had made from his youth nautics and seamanship the princi- 
pal object of his studies and endeavours. He was a witness to 
the glorious conquest of Rhodes, and afterwards accompanied in 
the western seas the late admirals Khaireddin (Barbarossa) and 
Sinaun Pashaw on all their expeditions, completed in that way the 
course of his naval acquirements, and composed many works on 
nautics and astronomy. "^^^ His "father and grandfather were both 
employed at the arsenal of Ghalata in the rank of Kiayas, and 
distinguished themselves as exquisite, skilful seamen. "*^^ 

I give below some particulars about this admiral, as collected 
from the Notice of M. de Diez in German, as translated by 
M. Morris in French.^^^ His name was Sidi-Ali bin Housain. He was 
also called Katib-i ^^^ Roumi. He lived during the reign of the 
Ottoman Emperors, Soleiman I (1519-1566) and Soleiman XL In 
his youth, he was somewhat of a poet. So, he took the name of 
Katib-i Roumi to distinguish himself from a Persian poet who was 
known as Katibi Adjemi. He commenced his voyages in 1553. 
He was appointed admiral of Egypt in that year and was asked to 
take the Turkish fleet from Aleppo to Bussora and then from there 
to Suez through the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. While passing 
through the Persian Gulf with his 15 ships, he came across a 
Portuguese fleet of 25 ships at the island of Hormuz. 

*^^ Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay, London (1820). 

Vol. II, p. 1. 457 JJ^i^ 458 jrj^-^^ pp^ 1.2. 

*^" Journal Asiatique, Vol. IX j p. 29 seq. 

*"* Katib designe un employ^ dans la chancellerie {Ibid^ p. 30). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 261 

He was victorious in the fight. Seventeen days after, 
he met, on Arabian coast, another Portuguese fleet of 34 
ships which ran away after a short fight. Adverse winds 
drove him away from Arabian coast. Then he was overtaken by 
a heavy storm and was forced to proceed to the coast of Gujarat 
and to land at Daman,^«i which was in the hands of Sultan Ahmed 
and was governed by Malik Asad. This commandant, on hearing 
his account, told Sidi Ali to be on his guard, lest he may be again 
attacked by the Portuguese. At Damaun, he met some sailors 
of the merchant boat from Kalkun ( ^^j^Jl^ )^^2 This name is 
written in another place as Kalout ( c:j^ j.-'^^ 

The Mahomedan Governor of Damaun advised him to proceed 

,,.,. ,,. ^, to Surat, which is spoken of by him as Sourriat 
Sidi All Cha- ^ - ^ a i i i- i , r 

libi's short stay ( ^:! f" )• ^ l^rge. number of the people of 
m India. jiis ^^^^ ^q^;^ service among Indian troops, because 

they could not return by sea. The admiral 
himself went to Surat with some of his people. He had only few 
ships with him and he was again attacked by the Portuguese fleet 
there. But the Portuguese could not capture him. At this time,, 
the Ottoman Empire was powerful ; so, as its admiral, he com- 
manded great respect wherever he went. He met Emperor 
Humayun and gave him much information about astronomy. 
Some Indian kings wished to keep him under their services. Sultan 
Ahmed of Gujarat wanted to engage him and to give him the 
country of Berdedj ('^^ f. ).'^^^ Shah Hassan Mirza of Sind wanted 

^" Ibid, pp. 32, 82. 

*«2 Journal Asiatique, Tome IX, p. 82. 

^*^ Hammer gives for the first name, Calcutta. Transactions op. cit. II, 
p. 4. This is a mistake for CaHcut. He gives, a little later on {Ibid), the 
name properly as Calicut. Perhaps, the mistake may not be his own, but of the 
Press in London, where our Journal was then pubhshed. As to the two diflfer- 
ent names, Kalkun i^^-J^ and Kalut ( ^^ y^ ), it is properly observed 

by the translator, that the correct word is ey^Oi Kelkout, i.e., 
Calicut (on doit, sans doute, corriger dans les deux endroits et ecrire Kelkout 
ou CaHcut) ( Journal Asiatique. Tome IX, p. 82, u- 1 ). This 
correction is justified by the fact that the king of that country is referred 
toas8ameri( ^ y<lM, )i,e., Zamorin. 

*^* Jour. Asiatique IX, p. 94. This name seems to be Broach. The letter 
dal seems to be a mistake for vav. So, the name may be read Barouj 
\^jy,) ^•^•, Broach. 

262 f Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

to keep him and offered him Governorsliip of Lahori or Diouli 
Sind.*^^* Humayun himself offered him large sums of money if he 
took his service. One of the Uzbek Khans offered him Bokhara 
when he went there. But his love for his country and attachment 
to the Koyal house of Ottoman led him to refuse all these offers. 
His only great ambition at the time was to have another fleet from 
King Soleiman, and command it again to fight with the Portuguese. 
On his return journey, he passed through Sind, Hind, Zabulestan, 
Badukhshan, Khotan, Transoxania (Mawarannehr), the 
desert of Kiptchak, Khowarezm, Khorassan, Persia, Kurdestan, 
Bagdad, Adrianople. Soleiman was at the time at Adrianople. 
He was away from Turkish territories for 3 years from 1553 
to 1556. 

This admiral Sidi Ali was also known as Chalibi. Haji Calf a 
(Haji Khalfa), who lived in the 17th century and who wrote in 
1645 a bibliographic Dictionary^ speaks of him as Chalebi ( g>io. ). 
Chalebi seems to be a common family name. " ^^^ 

According to Sir Edwin Pears*^^, ChiHbi is the designation of 

the "Superior of the Mehlevhi Dervishes, 

siqnation. ^ ^ ^^^ resides usually at Konia, the ancient Iconium. ' ' 
" The act of girding on the sword of Osman, the 
founder of the dynasty " on the coronation day, " belongs by 
right " to these superiors. ^^^'^ According to M. Keinaud,^^^ there was, 
in 1553, an admiral of the Ottoman Emperor SoHman, named Sidi- 
Ali-Tehelebi. The Ottoman fleet under him, while chasing the Portu- 
guese, who were at that time very powerful in the Red Sea and 
in the Persian Gulf, the two seas which the Musulmans considered 
as an appendage of the cradle of Islamism (comme une dependance 
du berceau de I'islamisme '^^^ ), was overtaken by great storms 
(horrible tempetes) and forced by adverse winds Xo touch the coast 

^«*« Ibid, p. 131. *«^ Vide Journal Asiatique, Vol. IX, p. 36. 

^^^ Forty Years in Constantinople. The Recollections of Sir Edwil 
Pears, 1873-1915 (1916), p. 175. 4««« lUd. 

*^' Geographic d'Aboulf^da, traduite par M. Reinaud (1848), Tome I anc 
II. Introduction; p. CLXV. ^^^ j^^^^ 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh * 263 

•of India. This Chalibi, besides being an admiral, was* a great 
scholar and an enthusiastic searcher after knowledge.'*^^ 

From the above account, the principal fact which we 
gather is this, that a Turkish admiral, named Sidi Ali Chalibi, who 
was all along harassed by the Portuguese in his voyage, was driven 
to the shores of Gujrat by a monsoon storm. By the time he 
came here, his fleet was all shattered or well-nigh annihilated. 
He had, left with him, some ships, but they were not worth sea- 
faring and were also not in a position to fight with the Portuguese 
who were sure to harass him further. So, he thought of returning 
to Constantinople by land. He returned with a few men, and 
most of his crew and sailors took service here. He himself says 
in his above-mentioned work : "As my men heard of this 
intelligence [viz., that the Portuguese fleet was coming], 
some of them remained at Daman, attaching themselves 
to the service of Melek Esed [the Mahomedan Governor of 
Daman on behalf of Ahmedshah] and some, preferring the 
land to the sea, sunk their boats, and went by land to 

Surat. I, with the few that remained attached to me 

proceeded to Surat by sea The faithful inhabitants of Surat 

rejoiced at our arrival They expressed their hopes that by 

Ottoman fleets Guzurat would soon be added to the Ottoman 

empire, and regj-etted only that our arrival had happened in a 

time of internecine discord and civil war."^^^ Thus, it appears, that 

the Siddis who played, later on, a great part in the naval warfare 

on the Western shore of India, and the Chalibees, were both the 

descendants of the brave sailors of the fleet of Siddi Ali Chalibi. 

Mr. Edalji B. Patfel refers to later Chalibis, named Ahmad 

and Saleh Chalibi.'*^^* Mr. Jahangir Burjorji 

Sanjana, who had, at one time, lived long at 

A later Chalibi. Surat, wrote on 17th August 1928, in reply 

to my inquiry, that there was a local tradition 

prevalent at Surat of a later Chahbi named 

*** After writing the above, 1 have come across an interesting account 
of Konia in the Illustrated Weekly of the Times of India of 10th February 
1929 (p. 24) from the pen of Dr. L. Dudley Stamp. According to this writer, 
Chalibi Effendi was the head of the "Order of the Whirhng Dervishes of 
Xonia." *' ° Transactions of the Literary Society of Bombay, Vol. II, pp. 4-5. 

*'«« The History of Surat (in Gujarati, 1890), pp. 63-(>4. 

264 ' Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Mohammed Saleh Chalibi. He was a great merchant and possessed 
many ships. He had great influence with the kings of Delhi. It 
was he who had built the Daria Mahal, latterly owned by Mr.. 
Burjorji Modi.''^^^ 

According to Anquetil du Perron, who was for several years at 
Surat, the Chalibis, of whom he speaks as Tche- 
libis were Arab merchants (Marchands Arabes*'''^) . 
th Chal'l's ^^ Anquetil Du Perron refers to the dissensions 
among the family of the Nabobs of Surat, where- 
in, the European factors took one side or another. 
The Dutch were on one side and the English on the other. In 
these dissensions, the Chalibis were on the side of Nawab Miachan 
(Mia Khan), who was supported by the English.*^^ Anquetil refers 
to the Chalibis as being very powerful.*^* Anquetil also speaks 
of the Chalibi as the Admiral of Surat. 

Some of these Chalibis were known in the West also. We 
read: "Widely scattered Shia communities acknow- 
thtwe^t'''^'^' ""^ ^^^^e the spiritual supremacy of the Chelebi of 
the Bektashi".^^^ " The Bektashi sect is reputed 
to have been founded by Haji Bektash, who is represented 
as a fourteenth-century Anatolian saint, mainly famous as 
having consecrated the original corps of Janissaries." *^^,. 
The family title has also come down. In 1914, Jemal Efendi 
was the Chalebi and he " claims to be the actual descendant of Haji 
Bektash and de jure the supreme head of the order. His office is 

*'^ I give here the result of his inquiries in his own words : ^"d S^l Si'il 
is ^ Hl^Mi ^l$t\§ ^hIhI ^h ^l4l ^liPl^ <^rll il rt Jiai'li «\4l34 ,idi a>i^ <\6^ ^hI 

>l?li|^ t5. dMw rt'tli ^l^ >ilil vf-HiH T^l^mi 'il'5^ini€ii3< ciliT otctl^l D. f1>i«' ^il 
j=ll ilv R. ^. rt'Hiai'i'l S^i$iit^i litJ W^t.T I think that, perhaps, the nakhu 
dawala referred to here was some one of the descendants of the above 
followers of the above great Turkish Nakhoda or Captain. 

^'2 Zend Avesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre (1761) Tome I, p. 278. 

^'^ Ibid, p. 283. For an account of these disensions, vide my Anquetil 
Du Perron and Dastur Darab p. 27 seq. *'* Ibid, p. 350. 

^'5 Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, by F. W. Hasluck, Vol.1, 
p. 161, *'« Ibid, p. 159 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 265 

liereditary in his family though the succession is not from father 
i50 son, the senior surviving brother of a deceased Chelebi taking 
precedence of his eldest son".^^^ Some pronounce the name as 
Zelebi ^78. 

The Kisseh speaks of Rustam Manock going to the Captain 

Keran { ,j) r^ i^ ^i^^ ) of Damaun. This name 

occurs in several places (cc. 479, 482, 502, 511). 

apam e- rpj^^ Guiarati translator takes these words to be 
ran of Damaun. •* 

a proper name (c. 484). If so, who is this Captain 

Keran. I wrote, on this subject, to Mr. Dhanji- 
shaw Cawasji Dhanbhura, who has founded, recently, near the 
village of Devka, in the vicinity of Damaun, a Parsee colony 
of middle class Parsees, who have built their bungalows there on 
the beautiful sea-shore. He is the Abkari contractor of the Portu- 
guese Government of Damaun and is in a position to make full 
inquiries. He has kindly procured for me the following list of the 
-Governors of Damaun from 1559 to 1718 : 

Names of the Governors of Damon. 

1559 D. Diogo de Noronha. 

1581 D. Filippe de Castro. 

1581 Martin Affonso de Mello. 

1593 D. Duarte Dega. 

1607 Rui de Mello de Sampaio. 

1673 Manoel Furtado de Mendon5a. 

1678 Manoel de Lacerda. 

1698 Manoel de Sousa de Menezes. 

1698 D. Antonio de Menezes. 

1702 Joao de Sousa Montenegro. 

1705 Manoel de Sousa de Menezes. 

1709 Antonio da Silva Tello. 

1710 Agostinho de Four Barbosa. 
1713 Manoel Pereira de Castro e Abreu. 
1718 Bertholameu de Mello Sampaio. 

*" Ibid, p. 162. *'' Ibid, p. 163. 

266 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

This list of governors does not contain any name like Karan. 
So, I conclude, that it is not a proper name, but simply a 
designation. Captain Keran seems to " mean the great Captain." 

't'he word Keran, I think to be Pers. geran ^1 X the great. 

In those times, there was the practice — and that practice prevails 
even now to a certain extent — of speaking about officers, not by 
their names, but by their designations ; perhaps one may take the 
word to be the Indian word Karani ( i^iil ), who is a person 
who has something to do with the ship. In that case, one may 
take the word from P. keran i^lr^ i.e., shore or bank. There 

is a Parsi family, known as Karani, because the founder followed 
the profession of a karani. 

The Qisseh, while speaking of the ruler of Goa, says that his 
name was the great Vijril (cc. 499, 506, 528, 533, 
VijrUofGoa. 535^558,562,566): 

^/ — ^;;/- '/ ;-> J; 

This word Vijril ( Jj y^;t ^ ) also does not seem to be a proper 
name. In the list of the Viceroys or governors of Goa, as given by 
Dewan Bahadur Ranchodbhai, ^"^^ we do not find a name like that 
of Vijril. So, I think, that this word is an Indianized form of 
Viceroy. We find that, even Emperor Jehangir, in his Tuzuk, 
when he speaks of the Viceroy of the Portuguese at Goa, does not 
speak of him by his name, but as Warza "^^^j a corruption of Vice-rei 
or Vico-rei, the Portuguese words for " Viceroy". So, Vizril seems 
to be a form of Vice-rei or Vico-rei. 

The Qisseh speaks of Rustam giving presents also to the- 

Padris or priests at Damaun. In those times. 

The Pddri of ^^e pddris were very powerful. Besides attending^ 

Damaun. to their ecclesiastical matters, they also attended 

to political matters. We find that, at times, 

being powerful in the Mogul Court, they exerted their influence in 

*'® ^^ ^^ Tt^^l^ (Spam and Portugal) 1916. 
*®° Memoirs by Rogers and Beveridge, I, p. 274. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 267 

favour of their country of Portugal. In Goa itself, we find, that, at 
times, its archbishops acted as Viceroys ^^^ and, at times, they 
acted as colleagues in commissions, appointed to rule. For example, 
we find in the Commission of 1691-93, the Archbishop of Goa as a 
colleague of two other officers.''®^ In 1717, the Archbishop Primate, 
Don Sebastioe de Andrade Persanha ruled as Governor of Goa. 



The Documents, referred to above, refer to later events — 
events after the death of Eustam Manock. The 
Biddulvh'^s ''Pi- differences, which Rustan had with SirN. Waite, 
rates of Mala- continued, even after his death. Rustam and his 
bar,'' to Rustam s transactions were misrepresented and his sons 
had to suffer for these. Their transactions have 
been, on the authority of the one-sided letters sent by the English 
factors opposed to him, misrepresented, and later writers have 
been misguided. For example, Col. Biddulph has been so 
misguided. We find the following reference in his " Pirates of 
Malabar": " A Parsee broker, named Bomanjee, was under 
arrest for fraud ; Matthews demanded his surrender. The Council 
placed Bomanjee in close confinement in the fort, to prevent 
his being carried off. Matthews promised Bomanjee's sons, he 
would take one of them to England, and undertook to make the 
Directors see things in a proper light. "^^^ 

^^^Vide the List of Viceroys of Goa given by Di wan Bahadur Ranchhod- 
bhai Udairam in his Gujarati book, named Spain and Portugal (1916), 
p. 265 seq. ^^^ Ibid, p. 270. ^^^ " The Pirates of Malabar and an English- 
woman in India two Hundred Years ago " by Col. John Biddulph, p. 196. 
Vide my contribution'on the subject in the Jam-i-Jamshed of Bombay of 28th 
Nov. 1908. (For the contribution in connection with '' Annesley of Sural 
and his times" vide Ibid, 22nd Nov. 1919). 1 remember writing to Col. 
Biddulph, at the time when his book was published, drawing his attention 
to the true state of affairs, and he kindly wrote m reply that he would make 
he correction if he published another edition of liis book. Bomanjee had 
our sons. In the end, Matthews, instead of taking one of the sons, took 
Bomanjee, brother to London . 

*268 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Col. Biddulph refers to one Matthews in the above passage. 

Charles Boonet, who was the factor of the Surat 

Commodore Factory and who had gone to England, in the post- 

Matthews. ^^^.^^ ^^ ^ j^^^^^^ ^^^^^ 25th March 1725, addressed 

to Framjee and Bomanjee, the two elder brothers of Nowrojee 
who had gone to England, refers to the settlement of an affair betw^een 
Nowrojee and commodore Matthews. Biddulph's Matthews is the 
same as this Matthews. Who was this Commodore Matthews and 
what was the affair between the tw^o ? I give below an account 
of Matthews, which seems to show that the affairs may be in 
respect to Commodore Matthews helping the brothers and 
especially in the matter of the costs of conducting Nowrojee to 
England. Nowrojee was the first known Parsee, or, perhaps, the 
first known non-official Indian to go from here to England from the 
Bombay side, and so, he required all possible help and advice in 
the voyage and in England. I think, that had it not been for 
the help of Matthews, perhaps Nowrojee would not have gone to 
England. Col. Biddulph seems to have done some injustice to 
him and to the sons of Kustam Manock. The decisions in the 
cases of both justify the positions they had taken up. I give 
below this account of Matthews, as given by Col. Biddulph in 
his Pirates of Malabar. 

Commodore Thomas Matthews was asked in 1719^®* to proceed to 
East India with a strong fleet to suppress the pirates of Madagascar. 
For his "brutal manners", he was nicknamed "II Furibondo". He 
disregarded many of the orders of the Directors of the East India 
Company and came to Bombay on 27th September 1721. Though 
he was sent to the East to suppress piracy, it was suspected, that he 
was in league with the pirates. The ship Salisbury, in which, later 
on, Naorojee, the son of Rustam Manock, went to England, was 
in his squadron when he left England, but, being disabled in a 
storm, was delayed at Lisbon and followed him later. On coming 
to Bombay, he began quarreling with the Governor (Charles Boone). 
The Angaria"^^^ at Gharia infested the sea with his piracy and the 

*«* The Pirates of Malabar, by Col. John Biddulph, (1907) p. 169, seq. 

*®^ There was a line of Angarias. The first was Conajee (Kunhojee) 
Angaria. Then Manajee, his illegitimate son ; then Sakhaji, Sambhajee and 
Yessaji (Biddulph's Pirates of Malabar). 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 269 

English and the Portuguese jointly moved against him, marching, at 
first, towards Chaul which was in the hand of the Portuguese. The 
object was to attack Angaria's position on the coast of Colaba. 
" On the 30th October, a seven days' fast was ordered, to secure the 
Divine blessing on the undertaking, and the chaplain was directed 
to preach an appropriate sermon.'"*^* Matthews was in command 
in this joint expedition, which ended in failure. Governor Boone, 
who ruled for 6 years, was succeeded by Phipps on 9th January 
1722. In Boone's regime, a good wall was built round Bombay. 
When all ships fired salute to the Governor, Matthews did not do so. 
He aimed at private trade for his own benefit and sailed for Surat. 
A short time after returning to Bombay, he sailed for Madagascar. 
He had begun helping all those with whom the East India Company 
had a quarrel. From Madagascar he went to Bengal, and then came 
to Bombay, where he commenced quarrelling with the Governor 
and Council. Col. Biddulph speaks, as said above, of the help 
he gave to Kustam Manock's son, Bomanji, and adds: "He told 
the Council that they were only traders, and had no power to punish 
anybody. The Crown alone had power to punish. He (Matthews) 
represented the Crown and was answerable only to the King of 
England." ^^^ In the end, it was not Bomanji's son that 
Matthews took with him to England, but it was his brother. 
'' From Surat also he carried to England the broker's son, 
Eustamji Nowroji to worry the Directors."''^ He arrived in 
England in Julv 1724. That, then, we must take also as the date 
of the arrival at England of Nowrojee who accompanied him. 
The SaHsbury was the ship in which Nowrojee is said to have 
sailed. That ship joined, as said above, a ship of Matthew's squadron. 
On his arrival, the Directors, on reports from here, complained 
against him (Matthews) for misbehaviour before the naval authorities 
who asked for witnesses, but the same not being produced, the 
charge against him was dropped. Then, the naval authorities 
court-martialled him in December 1724. The Court was "unani- 

"« Ibid, p. 175. "' Ibid, pp. 196-197. «" Ibid, p. 199. The proper 
name is Kowroji Rustamjee Manoekji (Rustam Manock), but as it often 
happens, even now, European writers, following the European method of 
nomenclature, mention the father's name first. Vide my Gujarat i History 
-of the Parsee Panchayet (p. 40), for a reference toNowroji's visit to England. 

270 c Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

mously of opinion, tliat the said Captain Matthews hath in all 
respects comphed with his Instructions, except that of receiving 
Merchandise on board before the late Act of Parliament." How- 
ever, the Court found him guilty of sending his "men irregularly to 

Merchant Ships (and) Eesolved that he be Mulcted four 

Months' pay."489 

In a letter of Sir Nicholas Waite, dated "Bombay Castle, 

March 3rd, 1706-7," to the New United Company, 

Rustam Ma- gjj. Nicholas defends himself against the charge 
nock m Sir Ni- . . ^ ^ 

cholas's Letter. hurled against him, that it was he who had got 

Rustam Manock imprisoned. He says : " Yet 

after Eustomjee was dismist and to obviate out Charge of Indigo 

over vallued&ca. joined with Sir John'^^^ to corroborate what he had 

often aserted home, that he had been detained by my bribeing the 

Government when in Suratt : which if fact why was the Ffrench 

and Dutch under restraint or S^. Jno"*^^ &ca. not free and at 

liberty since my coming hether 9 ber 1704, to leave that Citty and 

Embarke when and where they pleased. "^^^ 

Col. Yule, while giving an extract from Sir Nicholas Waite's 

p ,. , . letter, dated 3rd March 1706-7, to the New Com- 
Eshmate of ' ' 

Sir Nicholas pany, speaks of him as " malignant, wrong-headed, 
Waite's Charac- and muddle-headed Sir Nicholas Waite. "^^^ 

Governor Pitt in his letter dated 19th September 

*^^ Biddulph's Pirates of Malabar, p. 200. Col. Biddulph seems to have 
been much influenced by the papers sent from the Indian factories to 
England, and thus, to have done some injustice both to Matthews and to 
Rustam Manock's sons, Bomanji and others. The above decision of the Court - 
martial, as given by himself, shows that Matthews, however hot-tempered he 
may have been, was working constitutionally, and so, he was found innocent. 
As to the injustice done by him to Rustam Manock, the letter from the 
Directors of the East India Company proves this. 

*^° Sir John Gayer. 

*»^ The Diary of William Hedges (1681-87) by Colonel Henry Yule 
(1887) Vol. II p. CXLVI. 

^^2 The Diary of William Hedges durmg his agency of Bengal (1681-1687)^ 
by Col. Yule (1888), Vol. II; p. CXLV. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 27 1' 

1706 says : "If your selves did hear what character in this place 
there is given of Bombay, and the person that is att the head of 
your Affairs there, you wou'd not blame his (Mr. Brabourne's) 
refusal, ^^-^ for I have hearde severall say that he had rather be a 
private Centenell in Fort St. George then to serve as Second 
under Sr. Nicholas ; and if itt be true, what all say that come 
thence, I can make no other judgement (I wish I maybe mistaken) 
then that he'll mine all, and yett I hear he's the New Company's 

We gather following particulars about Bahmanji, the second 
The sons of son of Rustam Manock. In 1723, i.e., two years 

Ri,stam Manock ^^^^^ ^^ father's death in 1721,he came to Bombay 
referred to m ' -^ 

the Documents, to seek redress for his brother Framji, who was 

confined at Surat by the Mogul Governor, Moumin Khan, at the 

instance of the English factors. On his coming to Bombay, he also 

was confined at his house by the officers of the East India Company 

here. He was ordered to be released in 1724 at the instance of the 

Home authorities.^^^ It seems that, since his release, he continued 

to live in Bombay. In 1739, we find him and his brother Framji 

as two signatories — the others being 22 Hindus and 5 Maho- 

medans — to a Memorial to the Government that in view of the 

Mahratha incursions on Bombay, better steps be taken for its 

protection and " the wall may be fortified ". The people of Bombay 

had already subscribed a sum for protecting Bombay by a good 

wall, and they said that, to bring up the sum to the required 

amount of Rs. 30,000, an extra cess of one per cent, may be charged 

for the time being. "^^^ 

In 1742, he took an active part in Bombay in collecting money 
for a Tower of Silence at Bharthana near Surat.*^^ He is said to 
have been a man of great influence among the East India Company's 
ofiicers here.^^^ He was a member of the then Parsee Panchayet of 

^'^ He was desired to be the Deputy Governor under the New United 
Company. ^»* Ihid, p. CXLVIl. 

*^^ Vide Document No. 1 for particulars. 

4«« Parsee Prakash I, pp. 853-54 Vide Selections from the Letters^ 
Despatches, and other State papers, preserved in the Bombay Secretariat,. 
Maratha Series, by G. W. Forrest, Vol. I. (1885), Introduction p. V. 

"' Parsee Prakash I, p. 36. "' Ihid p. 87, n. 2. 

272 , Ttustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh 

Bombay, in the regular foundation and administration of whicli 
he is said to have taken an active part>^^ He went through the 
ceremony of Navarhood in Samvant 1757, i.e., 1701 A.C.^^^ He 
was adopted by his uncle Behram and so, in religious ritual, 
his name was mentioned as Bahman Behram. We find the entry 
about his Navarhood in the Naosari Fahrest (Samvat 1757) as 
follows : \<^ \\ ^l. <r ^. oiH'l ^l. 'H^iH ^l. H[<h ^Hi. ^AV^^i ^Hl. ^^- 

I give my translation amplifying the abbreviations in full : Trans- 
lation. — Koz 16, mah 8, (Samvat 1757). Ervad^^'^ Beman Ostd Berdm 
ostd Mdneck. osta Chandna, osta Fardun (in the) nayat (of) Ostd 
Beram ostd Maneck, Ostd Chandna anosharavan Farmeyashna 
Eustam Maneck Chandna. 

As to the eldest son Framji, he took an active part in the 
affairs of the Parsees at Surat and of Bombay (Parsee Prakash 
I, pp. 510, 850, 853). As said above, he was one of the Parsee 
memorialists to Government asking for a fortified wall in Bombay. 

As to the youngest Nowroji, the pupil of the author of the 
Qisseh," on his return from England, the visit of which is referred 
to in the documents, he settled in Bombay. The Nowrojee Hill in 
Bombay commemorated his name. In his visit of England, he 
is said to have been accompanied by his sister's son Bhikhaji 
Kharshedji Wacha (P. Prakash I, p. 86, n. 1). He died on 13th 
April 1732. 

*«« lUd. 

5"" Vide the Navar Fehrest (•i«i^Rl<{l =(4T ^$?^^^i ^n^\ 'iln$l«i'l V,^$*rt), 
compiled by Ervad Mahyar Naoroj Kutar, vol. I, p. 77. Entry No. 632. 

^ "^ For this and other technical religious terms used in this passage of the 
Fehrest, vide the Introduction of the above Fehrest ; vide also my 
*" Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees." 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh . 273- 


A Few Important Dates. 

(1) Dates of a few important Events connected with the Trade 
of the West with the East, and connected with the History 
of India, before and during the times of Rustam Manock. 

The Crusades, which first brought the West into A. C. 
closer contact with the East 1095-1291 

The Portuguese under Vasco da Gama discovered 
the sea-route to India, and began trading with the 
East, thus breaking the monopoly of Genoa and 
Venice which traded by the land route . . . . 1500 

Mahmud Bigarha of Gujarat (reigned 1459-1511) 

lost his fleet in a battle with the Portuguese, fought 
offDiu502 1509 

Goa captured by the Portuguese . . . . . . 1510 

Baber proclaimed King at Delhi after the defeat of 
Sultan Ibrahim Lodi at Panipat 

Accession of Humayun to the throne at Delhi 

Akbar born . . . . . . . . 

Humayun, returning from his flight to Kabul, re 
conquered India 

Akbar appointed Governor of Punjab . . 

Akbar came to throne 

Overthrow of the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar 
which gave " a serious blow to the prosperity " of 
Goa, which did business with it . . . . . . 1565 

Father Thomas Steven, the first Englishman to land 
in India, landed at Goa, though not for trade 
(Died 1619) 1578 

Portugal united with Spain under PhiUp II, a bigoted 

Cathohc Monarch. This Union weakened Portugal. 1580 

Queen Elizabeth gave a Charter to a small Company, 
known as the Levant Company and also a- ^^>" 
Turkey Company ^-'^^ 



^°2 Yide Smith's Oxford Student's History of India, 6tli ed. (1916), p. 133. 

274 ' Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh ] 

This Company sent out Newberry, Fitcli, Leeds and 
others to the East, by the overland route of Alleppo, 
Basra and Hormuz, with a letter from Elizabeth A. C. 
toAkbar 1583 

They arrived in Akbar's Court 1585 

Philip II's Dutch subjects of the Netherlands, where 
seeds of the Keformation were first sown, revolted 
against his bigotry. So, Philip, to punish them for 
the Revolt, stopped their intercourse with Portugal 
from where they received the commodities of the 
East. So, the Dutch, being thus deprived from 
having Eastern commodities from Portugal, began 
trading independently with the East . . . . 1594 

Private Dutch trading Companies united to form *' The 

United East India Company of the Netherlands" ^^^ 1602 

Englishman Middenhall came to India, via Alleppo 
and Persia, at the head of a Commercial Union 

Akbar died . . . . .... 

William Hawkins, commanding Hector, the first 
English ship coming to India, arrived at Swally 
near Surat 

Hawkins arrived at Jahangir's Court at Agra with a 
letter from King James 

The English estabhshed a Factory at Maslipatam 

The first English Factory in Surat 

Aurangzeb born . . 

The people of Denmark sought trade with India and 
"founded a settlement at Tranquebar in the Tanjore 
district" (Later on, they occupied Serampore near 
Calcutta, but, in the end, sold their Indian settle- 
ments to the British and left) . . 

Shivaji born 

Rustam Manock born 

The English founded a Factory at Vizhingam 
in Travancore . . 

^"3 Smith's Oxford Student's History of India, 6th ed. , p. 163. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh . 275 

The Establishment of the East India Company in A. C. 
Madras 1658 

Murad, a son of Shah Jahan, attacked Surat, to have 

a big loan from the rich men of the city. November 1658 

Aurangzeb imprisoned his father Shah Jahan and 
came to throne. (Ruled from 1658 to 1707 
for 60 years) 31st July 1658 

Formal grand Coronation Ceremony of the enthrone- 
ment of Aurangzeb . . . . . . 5th June 1659 

Aurangzeb abolished ancient Persian Calendar . . 1659 

Shivaji killed Afzul Khan 1659 

Bombay given as dowry to Charles II. The cession 

was intended as " check on the Dutch power " . . 1661 

Aurangzeb received the first of the Foreign missions 
or Embassies, the last being in October 
1667 February 1661 

Shivaji's First Sack of Surat 1664 

Treaty of Purandhar between Aurangzeb and 
Shivaji 1665 

Shah Jahan died . . . . . . . . . . . . 1665 

Shivaji's flight to Raigarh from Aurangzeb's 

Court 1666 

Bombay given by Charles II to the East India Co. . . 1 668 

Temporary Peace between Aurangzeb and Shivaji . . 1668 

War again renewed 

Second Sack of Surat by Shivaji 

Imposition of Jazieh by Aurangzeb 

Shivaji solemnly crowned 

Shivaji died 

Rustam Manock signs, as leader, a communal document 

relating to the Naosari and Sanjana priests. 6th June 1685 

Establishment of the East India Company 
in Bombay . . . . . . . . . • . • 1687 

JMoghal Power at its zenith 1688 

. . 1670 

. . 1670 

. . about 1672 

. . 1674 

5th April 1680 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Calcutta founded . . 

Aurangzeb died 

Jamshed Kaikobad wrote his Qisseh 

Kustam Manock died 

(2) A few dates about the English Factories in India 

The first Enghsh Factory or Trading Station esta- 
■ bhshed at Surat . . 

EngHsh Factory at Surat, " confirmed by Imperial 

grant after the naval victory over the Portu- 
guese in 1612 "^^4 

King James sent Sir Thomas Koe as ambassador 
to Jahangir 

Sir Thomas Koe left India "He failed to obtain the 
Treaty which he asked for "^"^^ 

A site given to the British at Madras, by " the Kaja 
of Chandragiri, in consideration of a yearly rent " 
and a Conveyance was made " in favour of Mr. 
Francis Day," a Member of Council in the Agency 
at Masalipatam . . . . .... 

English Factory at Kajapore opened . . 

English factory of Eajapore sacked by Shivaji 

Bombay ceded to the English by the Portuguese 

English factory at Surat withstood Shivaji's first sack. 

English Factory at Karvar sacked 

Charles II leased Bombay to the East India Company 
for £10 a year. The transfer was made to Sir 
George Oxendon who was Governor of Surat from 
1663 to 1669 

Aungier, governor of Surat Factory, from . . 1669- 

English Factory at Surat about to be sacked second 
time by Shivaji . . . . . . ... 

Aungier came down to Bombay from Surat . . 

^"^ V. Smith's "The Oxford Student's History of India" 6th. ed., p. 164. 
^"^ lUd. 

Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 


. . 1625 


. . 1652 

. . 1654 



. . 1659 


English Factory at Hubli sacked 1673 

Aungier returned to Surat 1675 

Bombay became the Head-quarters of the British in 

Western India in the time of Sir Josia Child . . 1683 

(3) A few dates about Bernier, who visited India in the 
time of Aurangzeb. 

Francis Bernier born , . . . . . , . . . 1620 

Charles I . began to reign . . 

Bernier's travels in Europe 

Bernier passes Doctor's examination . . 

Bernier visits Palestine and Syria 

Goes to Egypt . . 

Reaches Surat in the end of 1658 or beginning of 

Engaged as Physician by Dara at Ahmedabad. March 

or April 1659 

Dara, having been compelled to run away, Bernier 

places himself under the protection of a Mogul noble 1659 

Restoration of Charles II. May 1660 

Bernier at Delhi 1st July 1663 

Bernier travels with the Noble in Aurangzeb's suite 

to Kashmir, starting on 14th December . . . . 1664 

Arrives at Lahore . . . . . . . .25th February 1665 

At Allahabad on 6th December 1665 

Bernier and Tavernier part company .. 6th January 1666 

Bernier at Golconda . . . . . . . . . . 1667 

Meets Chardin at Surat 1 667 

Embarks at Surat for Persia 1667 

AtShirazon 4th October 1667 

Continues in Persia . . . . . . . . . . 1668 

At Marseilles April-May 1669 


:278 Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh. 

French King grants License for publishing his A. C. 

Travels 25th April 1670 

Visits England 1685 

Died 22nd September 1688 

(4) A few dates relating to Aurangzeh. 

Aurangzeb born 24th October 

Imprisoned his father and came to throne. 31st July 
Orand formal Coronation . . . . 5th June 

Issue of Islamic Ordinances, e.g., the cancelhng 
of Naoroz end of June 

Suleman Shelko, son of Dara, brought to Court in 

chains 27th December 

Murad murdered . . . . . . . . 4th December 

Went to Mukteshwar to suppress brothers' rebellion 

in Bengal 13th November 

Keturned to Delhi . . . . 13th February 

The first of the Foreign Ambassadors Mission 
arrived . . . . . . . . February 

Started for Kashmir . . . . 8th December 

Eeturned from Kashmir to Pelhi . . January 19, 

^hah Jehan died . . 

Another Enthronement on Shah Jahan's death 


The Hoarding of the reigns of 3 Emperors which were 
removed from Agra to Delhi were brought back to 
Agra in 1,400 carts . . . . . . . . May 

The Court returned to Delhi where it remained for 7-J 
years (two years in this period Dec. 1669 to Oct. 
1671 were spent at Agra) . . . . . . October 

Imposed Jazieh . . . . . . . . . . about 

The Visit of the English Ambassador with Kustam 
Manock at his camp . . . . . . . . about 

His Death 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 279 

A. C. 

(5) A few important dates about the Rule of the Siddi at 
Dandeh-i Rajpuri, which was visited by Rustam 
Manock, and the adjoining country. 

An Abyssinian colony of Siddis at Raj pur and the 

adjoining country . . . . Early in t e Ifith Century. 
One of them became the Governor of Dandeh-i Rajpuri 

under the Ahmednagar Sultanate. Early in 17th Century. 
When Ahmednagar fell, the Siddi became somewhat 
independent and was recognized by the Bijapore 
Sultanate as its representative . . . . . . 1636 

Yusuf Khan Seedi ruled at Janjira 1642-55 

He was succeeded by Fath Khan . . . . . . 1655-57 

The Revolution .. 1670 

Eath Khan imprisoned by the Siddis for offering to 
surrender to Shivaji, and the Siddi fleet transferred 
from the overlordship of Bijapore to that of the 
Delhi Emperor 1670 

Siddi Sambal created Admiral and Siddi Qasim and 
Siddi Khairyat, commanders of Janjira and land 
territory of Raj pur, respectively. The title of Yaqut 
Khan conferred on successive admirals . . . . 1671^^ 

Siddi Qasim, surnamed Yaqut Khan, re-captured 
Dandeh-i Rajpuri from Shivaji's hand during the 
Holi festival March 1671 

Siddi Sambal, the admiral, returned to Dandeh-i 
Rajpuri from Surat May 1673 

Siddi Sambal attacked* Shivaji's admiral Daulat 

Khan in the Ratnagiri district . . . . March 1674 

Siddi Sambal removed from Admiralship by the 
Moghal Emperor and Siddi Qasim (Yaqut Khan) 
appointed Admiral and governor of Danda 
Rajpuri May 1676 

Siddi Qasim (Yaqut) compelled Shivaji to raise the 

Siege of Janjira December 1676 

Prof. Sarkar says it was in or after 1674. 

280 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Siddi Sambal had not delivered as yet the fleet to A. C. 

Yaqut. Both met at Bombay and came to blows 

and, finally, through the mediation of the English 

Council, the quarrel was settled and Qasim was 

installed as admiral . . . . . . October 1677 

Qasim left Bombay with the fleet . . November 1677 

Qasim returned to Bombay with his fleet for rest 

during the Monsoons April 1678 

Shivajee sent 4,000 men to Panvel, to burn from there 

Qassim's fleet. They failed . . . . . . July 1678 

Siddi Qasim plundered Shivaji's Alibag coast 

country 1678 

Siddi Qasim inactive in Bombay, for want of funds 

from the Mogals at Surat to pay his men, &c. ... 1679 
The Siddi occupied and fortified Underi (Hen- 

neri) .. .. .. .. 9th January 1680 

Qasim burnt many villages at Pen . . February 1680 
Qasim joined the English in the attack upon Shivaji's 

island of Kenneri . , . . . . November 1680 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh * 281 

The Persian Text of the Qisseh of Rustam Manoc^ 

^) J ii;l/^l ^c\i;(^-j ^^3 tji^ ^'^)^^ /jU— i^ 


1; lJ-LL. ^^^^^ ^t^^^l 


e;^; -? ii^^t^ *; J^ -?' ^^ 

Jl \sJL 

C>; I J b T J-jJ )^ j 1 J^ 

^ I cA — \AC ; J I; j ) 6^ ,]» 1^3 ^ U^ ^»>^ ^^ t_> T x^ u-Xj j 

^^_-J IcAj^. ^^j^a^ ^^U j j^^; ;j pac jl jb;^T ^jJj 
J—^^ jl J ^1^ jl ;>i j:--l; 1^ ^ uT^I; ^;U^ 





^^ l^i J,^iL.« ^ ; tic ^ tii r; tij 

^y ^^bu ji^L ^y ^^3 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


J J 


J Uly 

;UjT ^yt ^ ^^ ^ki ^j1 ^r 



liT^^^ U^f ^'^■*;T ^Cu_-:L 


y ^^^ 

1 ^ 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qtsseh • 283 

u__JUxw J/ ^ li^^j ^^ J — aK jl ^^ j>l^# jm l:uS^ 

.j^ ;^ L/J; ^;i.K jl ^ u5'^"'>' ^^ l/=? f^^ ^ 

/ J^^^ ^;J ]^—^ pli j ^^ jlj^ ^kj ^) jji'j ^y/ 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

J^y ^i)^J ti^^-^l ^-i^jl ^ J^) ft) v^^'-^ ^^^ '^Ji 

ft) ^ 

^ ' ci* '; ' )Jt"^ 

j^Au la. 

^[^ ; iij^v^ j^ 11^^ 

-? u 


i^^:- j I /J 



li^W L/:f ^ "^^^ j^"^^ ^"« ^' 
^^.UyT ;^ eJu?^ ^cij C^';:?^:? 


/^>j U ^ 


—aT «(r ; 

Rusiam Manock and the Persian Qisseh * 285 

)]d XiiijLj jIjoj o^p:* I;^ ;'^-? ;lw.^i ^^ULi^ Jj 

plr ^l — ^ M ^1^ ^UUj pi — i^AJ ^1 ' Jjjy Jijy j 


286 ' Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


a'^ — -^i u'^^^ ^>^ jl ^ 
Lkc j) U ^U ^;U ^ir 


;^ /^r 

^:^>^ ;^ jl y 



u^;'; ; 

1 *>^y^ 

d-^^ ^_i*« 

u^^ ^ 

^O^ i 



u'^ ^ 




l^-«; e?l 


^ Sr^>^ 

Jb |.^ J 

3 ^^W 



^^^^ j c^ ^^ ci^ y Ic ^ ^^ ^ ^J ^^ /^f^^w j) Vj>.»b {^'^4^ ^^''■?'"*' 

f''^^ j^-^ x»3^j ^ jjfAxij i»LAi /^^j-7». ^> ^-^^ tyj 


^ Uil U <y^ ; V.>»0 ^ ,Ja«aLuJ 0]jC j ci.j I ei> j Ij I ^ ^ I .> j ci^ 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ' 287 

»kXoLs,^ijj! ci/.jua< Nj/i^ jjuK (jlCij^ ^^"^^ 

y ;^^-> ; ^/ "^^y. r^ )^i^ f^ *^/" ^. \j^ uU-? 

d^J^ ^ Uj j^i^^**' 4^^j ijljl -Mj ^^a. ^^ly J^^^ I;^ / 

;A ^" Uj-^J '^.-^/^ J— ^^ jj; j;; ^ '^>i^ j^r ^r-^ 


'^y^'^ ^^y=^^'^**^ ^^ )'^^^- ^ y^ ^>^V "^ <J^ yt^- ^ 

"288 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

^^.^ ^_c^i^ ^j-* jJ ^-^ ^-i^ ^**^ '^\) ^'f^ & ^^ j' ^ 

^^t* ^^Uj ^y' ^aa4j ^5 diL lijV?' (.flJ^ Ij^ I c^U. tX^^^ 

*^>>' ^5— '-^^ Vi/=^>^' b/:^;''^^ »^;>J *^;T/J 0-—t O^^ ^'t* 

J^ R^istani Manock and tkt Persian Qissek 289 

■w \ v^ 



J ]d 





.Hi il ^ 

7^' n;-^ t:;^ U**V^ )^ c^i j^ 

^ J^' 


jUj pi JUi ^ ^'^"^ 




290 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

l__^l^^ j cy;U: c\i^^) l^)^ ^ ^U , ;^j; ^ ;; 

i^jj^ x^y ^);Ci J ^^ij^-^^ "^ ^ } s^^") A^ ^\ ) ^ \j^i ^\ }\ 

U ^l^ 


^ U^'^^V 

v_jlla. (J 


-JUii ^^ 


^^T / j^ui , 

oJ^L ^r 




T jH,t^ 


cU^/ls-*);^ ^^^^ixJii^ ^; ^^^ tU) ^) t:;!;**"! t:;j-f*t ^^^*^ 

y Jite) J |»^;); dA-^l ^ ^ Jtxil) j^ ^Uc3.^I ^j] 

;l^i^xi j^i:*u; ^ja. ^i" cUUi ;(^*>^J ^^*^ ^^ ^j^ ^^j; 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


U ^* 

{^f"' u"' 

iii cVJ Jxj 


I ^ 8 ^ ^ jk^ ^j I jJ ^^ d ] JJ 

j.i.3v j(> — i^y 

^^v >^y b u^ u^^ i/-* 

JjI ajU cX^i^ s/^^'^ c/=^>^ 




^Ur lib ai^ 1^^ ^^;ju>. ^I;j 

»l Jl-ioj ^^^ ^_5^ *>-JtL ^ 

j U ,hV'Xai. cXXj /J 1^ ^ Li «3 j J^ 

292 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

j^xj J^lv^ 'y ^J «J^ />*r ^^y' ^\y^^ »'^^r> J^^l;^ 

j^c^ <— ^^^ «^^ ^-^^ ^ J ;t"*"f (*^y) v^-^^zi-*^ ^T ^yif^ y'^ 

^^UXx. air ^, Ixjy: ^ ^^r ^ <i/^ O.J^^ j^ J ^^i.s-:' ^^aA^ 

Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh * 293" 

^W^'-^ V*^ ^^ Jtf^ '-XJU ^^ CL^x.*- ^t "-r^*^;^ 

' :;-r^^ .^^ ^^ u^/' /^^ i:;^-^/^y «;';>> i^^; ^'^ J 

^ ^;)^ — K ^^\JiWi ^^.^Is^ l^)]^ — i jj)^ O-^l (:;';»> 

:294 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 

ii^'y ;i;^?^J» «^*^^ jlTcUr ti)'^ vJ^ -? ^^' ^ uU^ 

1^* cj' 

^ ^ 



cUj ^ 

X^ *i>C 




Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 295 

b;T ^Uj I; )d^ p^ ^. [^ ^Uaj ^;^t ^u ^ 

•^;>^ ^^ cjV^ ;*i d'y -^-^j ^/i- ^/ ^;^ cj'^ 

^9 J JfiC ^^^.j x^^ ^ ^^^5 ^ v.:>JC^ l^ ^^;y e>-o 1 j I 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


t;-? .^^ 


> jXLm d 




ciT^V ^^^^ '^t^?' cj-y"'-*^ 

*^^^^ fr ^ lt;'^ 

r^';^ u^y 

-? .;-^^^ 

dl.9.;) ^^ ^^^ J:'.Jfry^ 

\ycj i^JJ]^, ^,_.^LcU ^ 
^U Jlj ^i^u ; Jj ^^Lio 




^f ^— tA?yT )/ 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 297 

]\ lJC3(x« /♦^ \ ci^JUw J i^/« t 

ij^^ jtr* j*^ u'-^j'^^ 

iLu/^, S-*i/ ij^-^^-- ^.3^^ ^^ 

1^ CS^OUw ^^p- /J-J'^ ^ S y^^^ 

c4f r^ u5^^ ';^ r 

u ^ 

298 ' Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

.^^Id VAC ^^1 I; ^^Jl yc ^^);J X^^ ^^; J Ui | ^^J 

L5"^*J^ ij'^y «^'^ L-CiU ^^j LILaJj^ ^5lo\ (wjbjJ 


(^_^ Lice p ^yc J I — TJ^ la. ^ cU/0 .>^i^ (^^ Uj ^ijj-! j^^i i^^ 1 y^ /^ 

]j^^s ^Cii) ^y ^J:ii^ ly-i^'c /i^) o/>Aj 
(j^^*"^:" ,v^^*"J;T fj^ »^^ u'j^^y e;^ x"^ ^'^'' 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh , 299^ 

>r^ ^^j'^ yj^C'^lj ^j^iMJi^'j ^ y^ ^ J '^ y^ ^j^^, '> (j.^ 

300 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseli 


jL> x^^ I; ^^ ;($' ^ 

^*^; ;-^^ t^j^ lti? t^j'J' 

Li^ J e5*^; *;' ^ JJ J^ **Jo (.Jo; ImJ Is-* I j I Jw« T >j j^i*** ^ 

v^r s^^-^y 



^d.^ S*ju^ 

cyLil JU 

ji bt 

\)J \^^- 



J) )^U^-J 

u^J'y ;^ 


)})ji u/=? 

VJ^Juifc. ^ 


J^i4 ^ ^T uf;^-y ^ ^)jl 

e;^^ -^^^ 



-?' ^>- e^b/i^y f 


';j u^^ -^ 

f. J^^^ ^^ 

*^;;^' ^— t^ ;*^ 


^c\<jy L-» 

yiji >_rb .di 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 30 

'^'^' usr^ e^/ ^'yj^ 

4)Uj »j>j_^ jyiJ-« ^Li» ^j^U^ 

.^^ O^e-2/^ ;^ J 


vj^JUo v« ^|»>Ua.^ \J^^ 

; tj »i 

U ^jioA-JL. ^ Lie ^ l^-* ^r 

^^ f ^ ^-t 

O* Jaw J -eJ J Li ; I -I I *^J 

*uL:t|y) ^;T ^^*^ i:;);^ 

;)y^I ^^y ^)U' )^, 

302 Rustam ManocJc avd 

^AuJ ^*u lij ^ j I t— ft* 1 J 8 tXi 

r^^i ^ 

Iskj^ Jot J ^ 

i^Ua. )^^) K^h^ f> ^):^. 

^^ Persian Qissek 

djj^ pj^.0^ ;l3r^ ^^ ^|;j» 

^U j;^T ^^J ;J. — L ^' 

jU L-^iy jj" 1. ^jjJ) ; 

»i^;W vj';-^ vj'^;>' c)'-:^ 

Kustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh . 303 

^/•^ liT^y"^ eJ^*^^ '^■^'^ "— 0>:?-? -;>^-? 1^)^/7? t:;';! 

j^l-T i^UAi" ;^tu^ c^-^ ♦J^ .ir;.^*^ ^^'^; (j^^ <j i>>^*^/?' 


304 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh • 305 

ly ^"^^ J^ ^-^ lT^ j^^ ';-> »j/ ; ^T ^Ji^^;) ^ 
;|y^ j^; u^^ J'^ LT^J J^ v:>^ u'y^ ^^4^'. urv ul-' 

;;»> ojl^> ^ ^r'^^ t:;^ y ^^^ ^i)'^^ ^)yi*^ u^^ 

ly' i.^**^^. ^ JVC ly ^1 ^^d yj^^Ji^ y j'^ ^r^ *rS^^y. 
j^ c:^-*2^; ; ^I^ );; A^y ^5^ \J*^/ ^»/^ j^T ,^J 

/♦^'■^ r^ J^j3-J "^3^ *JJ^ (^"^J CL^JJ^ r^^^y r<5 (^ (J ' ^^ ^ 

e;T ^y ^JwCi x^JcL» i..>^ ^j;)^ ^\SjS ^Vi jM. {z^\ tU 

~ • •• , 

«>Um/ jjUlr ^**^^ ^^ /~*r *^^j (^J '^^A**' V^ rf ;^/^ U U' 

p^ — ^ J^yS J] ^^]J ^M,jj p^; ^j^ (_5-j^ |,J;^^ ^jijT 

306 . ' Rustam ManocJc and the Persian QisseJi 

ij^y ^v^>. t^iyi ;^sr-^L» ^J])^ ^lyl ;U;i cUj^ 

ijb; ^-?>^' f*^J"^ A;^^ ^ ^^]^M, ^^[yjfjsj>^.£l^)\J>^]^^^J^ 

'^^J ^^^^ f' ^^); »->*^; \J^^i ^y^ kJ^^^:^ b^' •— ^^ /'' l/^ 


^>-*" V^;— ^)^ (^ai)^^:" cUm.; J^^;;jj j^^;dj |.i^-;j^ 

■ • 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh . :507 

JwU.; Is-^ I ^ cy ^ Ui I ; If ^ JutiJ Ls-V; J l; c>J J^ tJ^ /^ 

^u^ ^^,: ^i^i dj^j^i u';>^"" ft ) u*^;}^ j^^ 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

cJLi^^ uJutfjU J^)jj )^ x^-^ 

J J Let 4>^ o^ ij'y^ ^ "^jv*** 

|^£i.Lo />««^ ^1 ^'-^ yj^^^-i 


^^O; OJUuy ^ 


T ^ ^Lswtj J -J ;^k^>=»- ^ 




> Luo 


:' v^:;'r^^ e/:^'^ 


^U^t J 

j>*LL Cj ^^T ^:^ 

]jj ^iXf Jl^a.) i^Xw.A^ 
V^^ /.-CiU^ '^^ f^*^!^ 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ' 309 

[Lo . ic ^ L> ,^\zs^ J J. J 

u^:LJ^n;!^ ^i:i;^^^rp)j^ 


^^ L^ J ^^^ ; ^^.y^ > ^^^^ ^:' '^ '^j 1*^-^; ^ I;_^« I j I jj li^ 

^=^j^ '^^-^^-^U^ 


U ^ j*^'^ ^ ;;j^ ;t-? 






I a^ I ■ Isr-S^ ) J.i- 

Jjl^l; ^/ I; Ai ^^j 


•^r ; ^c-»^ ; Sr^'-Mj^ 

t^ .vC ^ (. — aj 

310 Rusiam Manock and the Persian Quseli 

DOCUMENT No. 1. ^ 

Our President and London, the 19th Aug^- 1724. 

CouNCiLL OF Bombay. 

Wee the Court of Directors of tlie United- Company Company 
of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies send this to 
acquaint you That by the King George lately arrived, and the 
Stanhope which came in Sometime before Wee have received 
yor. severall packets and Advices giving us an Account of our 
Affairs under your Management with the reasons of your proceed- 
ings. We observe in Yo^ Letters by y© King George, That 
the Governour of Suratt and the Merchants think it very reason- 
able, that the late Brokers should give us satisfaction as to all just 
Demands upon them, which as you have wrote us is what you desire, 
and would be content with the proof of even from their own 
Books and Accounts, and to submit any Matters of difference that 
may arise To the Determination of the Merchants of Suratt to be 
mutually chosen by the said Brokers and you, for them to conclude 
and settle the same. 

We find in the Letter by the King George That Fframjee is in 
Custody at the Suratt Durbar, and Bomanjee remains confined 
to his house at Bombay, former Letters gave us yo^- reasons, why 
you did not then think it proper to let him go off the Island. 

The Salisbury Man of War which arrived at Spithead the 
later end of Aprill last brought Nowrajee from Suratt, he is since 
come up hither, and hath laid before us severall papers and accounts 
which are Order'd to be perused and taken into Consideration. 

Among other papers he gave us one Entituled the Case of 
Framjee in close prison at Suratt, wherein he represents, That 
this was occasion' d by the Enghsh Chiefs Mr. Hope & afterwards 
Messrs. Cowans & Courtneys appHcation to Momeen Caun the 

^ In reading some words which are not legible, I am helped by the 
copies printed by Jalbhoy about 40 years ago. Some missing letters where 
they are not legible are put in brackets by me. As to the year at the top, 
it is 1724. After the printing o£f of the above . papers, I have seen some 
extracts which Mr. Kavasji Seth has sent for from the old records in 
England and I find that the year in the Extracts also is 1724 and so the 
. matter requires a consideration other than the one given by me above in 
the Section (Section II a) oi Documents. I g^ve^* *^® ®^^ ^ fac- simile photo 
of this first document. 


Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 311 

Suratt Gov^- and by a Letter delivered to him wrote by Governor 
Phipps on which Framjee was at first confined, then Guards set 
•on his Father Rustumjee's house, after this Framjee was forced to 
pay Momeen Caun at times Fifty Thousand rupees, and also Two 
hundred rupees a day for leave to supply the people in the house 
with provisions and Water, and besides all these hardships he has 
undergone Corporall punishments. 

We are apt to think this Case is greatly aggravated or at 
least that the Governor proceeded to rigorous treatment to Oblige 
Framjee to come to a fair Account according to the Custome of the 
Countrey, which was at first civilly desired to be done without any 
'Compulsion, and ought to have been Comply'd with. 

But however the Case be. We have at Nowrajee's request 
consented and agreed, and do hereby direct and Order That you do 
give leave to Bomanjee, if he do yet remain at Bombay to go to 
Surat whenever he pleases without delay, and That you do Yo^ 
Endeavour by proper application to the Governor of Surat to get 
Framjee released from Confinement, and the Guards taken off 
from his late Father's house. Our desires being to end all differ- 
ences amicably for We would not have him opprest. 

We have at Nowrajee's desire given him Six Letters, all of 
the same Tenor with this, That as he intends to send them over- 
land, if any should Miscarry, the rest may come Safe and Earlyer 
than by the Shipping directly from hence, for they will not sail 
till the proper Season by which you may Expect an answer to 
your Letters now before us, We are ^ 

Your Loving Friends 

E. Harrison. 
John Eccleston. Abra Addams. 

Ed.wd. Owen. John Drummond. 

John Bance. Willm. Aislabie. 

Baltzar Lyete. Wm. Billers. 

Jos. Wordsworth (Jun^^). Wm. Gossehn. 
Mathew Decker. Richd. Boulton. 

Rort. Hudson. 

Chan Child. 

Jos. Wordsworth. 

John. Gould. ^ 
^ There are at the end some three letters, which Jalbhoy reads (Jun). 

312 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


TO ALL PEOPLE to whom these Presents shall Come Wee 
Sir Mathew Decker of London Barronet Josias Wordsworth Edward 
Harrison and John Heathcote of London Esquires send Greetings 
WHEKEAS in and by One Indenture bearing date on or about the 
Eighteenth day of November last and made or mentioned to be- 
made Between The United Company of Merchants of England 
Trading to the East Indies of the one part andNowrojee Rustumjee 
of Surat in the East Indies (but then and now residing in London) 
Merchant of the other Part Reciting that severall Accounts Claims 
and Demands had been depending and several Disputes and Contro- 
versies had arisen between the said United Company and the 
said Nowrojee Rustumjee as well on the behalf of himself asFramjee 
and Bomanjee his Brothers in themselves or one of their own 
Proper right as in the right of Rustumjee Manackjee Father of 
the said Nowrojee, Framjee and Bomanjee to whom they are Repre- 
sentatives AND RECITING that the said partys having a Desire 
that an amicable End might be made of all Matters in difference 
between them had indifferently Elected and Chosen us to be Arbitra- 
tors of in and Concerning the premises and had agreed that wee 
the said Arbitrators should and might finally Determine all Differ- 
ences Controversies Disputes Claims and Demands between the 
said Partys or either of them upon any account whatsoever IT 
WAS WITNESSED by the same Indenture that it was thereupon 
Covenanted and agreed by and between the said Partys thereto 
and the said United Company of Merchants of England Trading 
to the East Indies Did for themselves and their Successors Covenant 
Promise and Grant to and with the said Nowrojee Rustumjee 
for himself and in behalf of his Brother at Surat that they the 
said United Company their Successors and Assigns should and 
would for and on their parts well and truly stand to abide Observe 
Perform fuUfill and keep such Award final End and Determina- 
tion as* wee should make of in and Concerning the premisses so 
as the same was made and put in writing under our hands and 
Scales respectively and ready to be delivered to the said Partys 
at the East India House in Leaden hall Street London on or before 
the Eighteenth day of the Instant January AND the said Nowrojee 
Rustumjee Did for himself and in the behalf of his Brothers their 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ 313 

«,nii each of their Executors and Administrators Covenant Promise 
and Grant to and with the said United Company of Merchants 
of England Trading to the East Indies their Successors and Assigns 
iihat he the said Nowrojee Rustumjee for himself and in behalf 
of his Brothers their and each of their Heirs Executors and Adminis- 
trators should and would well and truly stand to abide Observe 
Perform fuUfill and keep such Award final End and Determination 
as wee should make of in and Concerning the Premises so as the 
same was made and Put in writing under our hands and Seals 
respectively and ready to be delivered to the said Partys at the 
East India house in Leaden hall Street London on or before the 
Eighteenth day of this Instant January AND it was thereby Declared 
and agreed by and between the Partys thereto that the said sub- 
mission and the award to be made by the said Arbitrators in Per- 
formance thereof Should be made a Rule of his Majestys Court of 
Kings Bench at Westminster according to a late Act of Parlia- 
ment for determining Differences by Arbitrators as in and by 
the said Recited Indenture duly Executed by the Partys thereto 
reference being thereunto had may more at la (.. .) appear^ Now 
Know Ye that wee the said Sir Mathew Decker Josias Wordsworth 
Edward Harrison and John Heathcote having taken upon us the 
burthen of the said Award and fully heard and Examined the several 
Allegations and Proofs of the said Party and duly and Maturely 
■weighed and considered the same and the Matters in difference 
between them Do Declare that it Appears unto us that there was 
due at or upon the Eighteenth day of November last from the 
said United Company to the said Nowrojee *Rustumjee and 
to the said Framjee and Bomanjee Rustumjee Called Framjee 
Rustumjee and Bomanjee Rustumjee Sons of the abovenamed 
Rustumjee Manackjee Ninety One thousand three hundred and 
sixty seven Rupees and Twenty nine Pies and a half upon or by 
" Virtue of One Bond Deed or Interest Bill under the Seal of the 
said Company bearing date on or about the Fifteenth day of May 
One thousand Seven hundred and Sixteen and that there was 
likewise at the same time due from the said United Company to 
the said Nowrojee Rustumjee Framjee Rustumjee and Bomanjee 

^ The words in this line are not legible now, but Mr. Jalbhoy Seth who 
read them in 1900 gives them as " at large appear ". 

314 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 

Rustumjee Fifty one thousand Eight hundred and Forty Rupoes 
upon or by Virtue of one other Bond Deed or Interest Bill under 
the seal of the said Company bearing date on or above the fourth 
day of October One thousand Seven hundred and Sixteen AND it 
further appears unto us the said Arbitrators that there was at the 
same time due from the said United Company to the said Nowrojee- 
Rustumjee Framjee Rustumjee and Bomanjee Rustumjee upon 
severall Accounts depending between them and the said United 
Company so much as in the whole with the Money due on the 
abovementioned Bonds Deeds or Interest Bills as aforesaid make 
together Five hundred Forty six thousand three hundred and 
Ninety Rupees which said Five hundred Forty Six thousand three 
hundred and Ninety Rupees wee Declare to be the full of all that 
Can to the time aforesaid be Claimed or demanded of or from the 
said United Company by the said Nowrojee Rustumjee Framjee- 
Rustumjee and Bomanjee Rustumjee either in their own right 
or in the right of either of them or as they or either of them are 
Representatives or Claim under their abovenamed Father orj 
otherwise howsoever and accordingly wee do award the said Five- 
hundred Forty six thousand three hundred and Ninety Rupees, 
to be accepted by the said Nowrojee Rustumjee Framjee Rustumjee- 
and Bomanjee Rustumjee in full satisfaction of all Demands be- 
tween them and the said United Company to the said Eighteenth 
day of November and wee award the same to be paid in the Manner 
and form and at the Place hereafter mentioned (that is to say) 
Wee award that the sume of Nineteen thousand One hundred and 
twenty five Povmds Sterling money being the amount of Value 
in England of One hundred and Seventy thousand Rupees be welt 
and truly Paid or Caused to be paid by the said U(nited) Company 
to the said Nowrojee Rustumjee on or before the first day of 
February now next Ensueing and that upon such Payment the 
said Nowrojee Rustumjee do deUver up to the said United Com- 
pany to be Cancelled the B(ond her)ein before Mentioned to be 
dated on or about the Eighteenth day of May One thousand seven 

hundred an(d een)^ whereon as above mentioned is due 

Ninety one thousand three hundred and sixty seven Rupees and 
Twenety Nine pies and a half and the said other Bond herein- 

^ Jalbhoy gives "Sixteen ". 

Rustatn Manock and the Persian Qisseh 315 

before mentioned to be dated the fourth day of 0(cto)ber (?) One 
thousand seven hundred and sixteen whereon as above mentioned 
^ and Eight hundred 

do further award that the said United Company 

do on or before the first day of February which will be in the Year 
(of Ou)r Lord One thousand seven hundred and Twenty five 
EngH(sh) stile well and truly Pay or Cause to be paid to the said 
Nowrojee Rustumjee at Bombay in the East Indies the further 
su(m of) One hundred' Eighty Eight thousand one hund(red an)d 
Ninety five Rupees upon Payment whereof wee do Award and 
Direct that the said Nowrojee Rustumjee shall him(self sig)n and 
also Procure the said Framjee Rustumjee and (Boma)njee Rus- 
tumjee to sign a Receipt of acquitta(nce) of and for the said 
One hundred Eighty Eight thousand One hundred and Ninety five 
Rupees AND wee do further De(clare an)d award the said United 
Company well and truly to Pay or cause to be Paid to the said 
Nowrojee Rustumjee at Bombay aforesaid on or before the first 
day of February which will be in the Year of our Lord One thousand 
seven hundred and Twenty six English Stile the further Sume of 
One hundred Eighty Eight thousand One hundred and Ninety five 
Rupees being the residue of and in full Payment and satisfaction 
for the Sume of Five hundred and forty six thousand three hundred 
and ninety Rupees so due and Owing from the said United Company 
in the whole as abovementioned upon Payment of which said last 
Mentioned Sume of One hundred Eighty Eight thousand One 
hundred and Ninety five Rupees wee do award that the said 
Nowrojee Rustumjee shall Sign Seal and Deliver and likewise Pro- 
cure the said Framjee Rustumjee and Bomanjee Rustumjee to 
Sign Seal deliver to or to the use of the said United Company and 
their Successors a General Release of and from all Claims Accounts 
and Demands whatsoever between them and each of them and the 
said United Company to the said Eighteenth day of November 
last past And wee Do Award and direct that the said Nowrojee 
Rustumjee do and shall also Sign Seal and Execute unto and to 
the use of the said United Company a Bond of Sufficient Panalty 

2 Jalbhoy gives, as read in 1900/ 'is due fifty one thousand eight hundred 
and forty Rupees and we." 

316 Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh 

Conditioned for the saveing harmless and indemnifyed the saJ,d 
United Company and their Successors of from and against all 
Claims and Demands that shall or may be made upon the said 
United Company or their Successors for or in respect of the said 
Sumes of Money so paid in Pursuance of this Award and from and 
against all Actions Suits and Damages that Shall or may happen to 
or be at any time or times Commenced or Prosecuted against 
the said United Company or their Successors for or by reason or in 
respect of their having made such Payments as aforesaid or any of 
them or otherwise howsoever in relation thereto IN WITNESS 
WHEREOF wee the said Arbitrators have to this our Award 
Sett our hands and Seals this Eighteenth Day of January in the 
Eleventh year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George King 
of Great Britain France and Ireland defender of the Ffaith E^ 
oqez (?) Domini 1724. 

Sealed and Delivered. Mathew Decker, 

(being first Duely stampt) Jos. Wordsworth, ( I.S. ) 

in the presence of E. Harrison, ( I.S. ) 

c U 

Str. Hervey (?) John Heathcote, 


George Lloyd (?] 

(The Document bears a Seal on the left hand margin. The 
words Honi and Mai are distinctly read ; the other portions are 
torn off. So, the Seal seems to bear the inscription " HONI SOIT 

^ Jalbhoy gives these words as " or Anno ". 

^ For the reading of these two letters which seem to be I.S. and are put 
Tvithin a circle, vide above (Section HA Documents). 

Rustnm Manock and the Persian Qisseh . 317 


1. TO ALL to whom these Presents shall come. We Sr 

Edward Mathus 
•2. Knight Lord Mayor and the Aldermen of the City of 

London Send Greeting 
;. KNOW YE that on the day of the of the King 

Majesty of Court (?) 
1 . holden before us in the Chambers of the hall ? of the 

said City personally (?) 
•">. and appeared 

6. w^ellknown and worthy of good credit (?) 

and by solumn oath wh ...... 

7. upon the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God there and 

there C 

8. solemnly declare and depose (?) 

that was 

9. Sr Mathew Decker of London Baronet Josias Wordsworth 

E(dward Harrison) 

10. and John Heathcote of London Esquires Severally sign 

seal and (de)liv(er) 

1 1 . and Deeds Deliver our originall instrument of 

12. the Eighteenth day of January last and purporting to 

be •. 

13 the East India Company in England, and 

Nowrojee (?) 

14. of Surat and that he the said 

15. . , and Delivery thereof did his 

16. Bond and the said Nowrojee (?) did further declare . . . 

17 that the said WTiting (?) 

18 . . 

19. or that he the said 

20. the said Originall Instrument and the same Exactly to 

21. the same in Every respect. 

In Ffaith and testimony of 

.... Lord Mayor 

Seal of 

put and appeared 

on fourth day of February 

of the Keign of our Sovereign Lord 

King of Great Britain ...... 

Dated 1724. 

(Here there is an illegible signature) 

* This document is referred to by Jalbhoy. 

318 Rusiam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 


Messrs. Framjee Kustumjee and Bomanjee Eustumjee. 

I have received yo^ Several Letters, and have returned answer 
to some of them by Captn. Hide and last by Mr. Thomas Waters ; 
And I think you did wrong to send Newrojee to England without 
a Letter of Attorney from und^ yo^ hands after the English maner, 
neither did you send by him the original Bonds, which was the 
most material things wanting — I have to the utmost of my power 
helped and assisted Newrojee in yo^. affair, and have been of 
greater service than any body cou'd have been here, as I beleive 
Newrojee will do me the justice to signify to you — whatever 
Newrojee hath done in this concern hath been by my advice, he 
always consulted with me, and I have told him what was necessary 
and proper to be done — And as I have said to Newrojee that if , 
he or you tell any body what methods have been taken in England 
relating to this business it will greatly prejudice the affairs. 

Newrojee & Cap*. Braithwait of the Salisbury Man of War 
have had some dispute (the particulars Newrojee will acquaint 
you with) which dispute I have made an end of here, and they 
have given a General release to each other. 

Yor. Brother Newrojee hath paid the money due to me for 
consulage and Interest, and I have given him a receipt for the 
same — I have hkewise agreed with Newrojee that in case my 
Attorney in India should have received this money from either •; 
of you, Mr. Thomas Waters sha(ll pa)y back the money to you, 
with Interest according to the Custome of India and I have write 
to Mr. Waters & ordered him so to do — I have advised Mr.' New- 
rojee, and so have several Gentn.^ here, that you three Brothera 
shou'd live amicably and peaceably in all yo^. affairs, because in a 
very short time Its to be hoped the hon^le. Company will employ • 
you all jointly as their Broker, as is promised by my own, and| 
Newrojees good Friends here, but if any dispute happens among you^t 
then you will ruin yo^. business — Since Newrojees comeing td 
England he hath been very ill, but he hath taken great pains in- 
this business, and every body here hath great value and esteemj 
for him, because he hath managed this affair to the satisfaction. 

^ Gentlemen. 

Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseb 319 

fA the honWe Company, and for the Good and Interest of his Brothers 
and Family ; therefore you ought to make him a handsome present 
for his long and fatiging voyage & Good Services. 

In yo^, account dated Septr. 10th 1722 You have 
deducted Thirteen hundred Twenty Two Rupees 59 pice^ for Com- 
mission on Twenty Six Thousand Four hundred Fifty Eight 
Rupees 33 pice at 5 p. Cent to Mr. Hope as Vice Consul,this I can't 
aUow, therefore I hope you wiU recover it with Interest. For I 
promised Mr. Hope only on what he shou'd collect himself, by 
which means I understood he was Security, whereas had not yo^. 
affairs taken a favourable turn, my consulage must have been lost, 
by Mr. Hopes neglecting my orders — I have ordered my Attorney 
to receive back from Mr. Hope whatever he has so fallaciously 
charged in former Accounts, and I hope for yo^. assistance as I 
shall readily serve you in England. 

I understand Mr. Hope has not Credited me for the WilUams 
consulage and some other Ships on pretence that they belonged to 
Company s Servants, the Company gave me the whole perquisite 
without any exception, and the excuseing the Servants of Bombay 
or Surat was a voluntary Act and designed only as an encourage- 
ment to Young Beginners, for I ever insisted to have it paid in 
Stocks, otherwise the name of a Companys Servant might cover 
many Cargo's as Mr. Hope has done, this I hope you will enquire 
into and clear up for me. 

1 come now to recomend to you Mr. Thomas Waters, whom, 
I have made my Atto(rney) if he applies to you fs)r yo^. assistance 
in mine or his own affairs, I flatter myself you will give him what 
you are able — I recomend you to the divine providence, and am 

Yor. very Loveing. 
Mr. Waters, Mr. Innes, Mr."! 
Lambton, Mr. Louther are aU my |^ Char Boonet. 

Friends, whom I desire you will j 
assist as occasion serves. J 

London March 25 1725, 

Yesterday your brother concluded his affair with Commadore 

2 In this document the word pice is written in small types above the 

320 Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh^ 

Mathews, which considering the nature of your bil of Exchange 
is very wel made and end of and I do not think of least service 
I have done your family, I hope you wil exert your selves in like 
manner for me. 

Char Boonet, 




^/tt/i^^y^u^^ *-'/^"^ a/'/MZ /t>Au>/i a^rwe£C^/^t^cMc^id 
^(^^a^/u /kc^^i/n£^ aftftdca^/i^^ /(^^/t^imi^An Czun Mc</if<^^xzArf. 







'O/Ay^^Vi/l'y^ iC 

<c/ ( 




A'azar ; son of Aurangzeb . . 161 

Sbb^II,Shah 188 

Abbotabad 47 

AbduUa Khan, King of Kashgarh 195 
AbduUa Saiyid ; brought the 
hair of the prophet from 
Medina to Kashmir . . . . 70 
Aboulfeda 258 

Abu-al-Hasan, Subahdar of 

Kabul 65 

Abulbakar, CaHph . . . . 53 
Abul Barakat Khan ; rebuilt 
the Masjid of the Sunnis at 
Kashmir 48 

AbulFazl .... ..59 

Abyssinia 24, 30, 246 

Academy, the . . . . 4-6, 13, 18 
Acharya, Mr. G. V. .. .. 94 
Achaemenians, the . . . . 24 

Achillens . . 41 

AdilShah .. .. 240,243 

Adrianople 262 

iEsculapius 79 

Afiasiah 129,202 

Africa 23,24,30 

Afzul Khan : his encounter 
with Shivaji . . 186-86, 242 

Agra 1 11 , 156, 193;— first Dutch 
factory founded at . . ..119 

Agraeratha {see Aghriras). 
Aghriras,bi-otherof Afrasiab 129, 202 
Ahkdm-i Alamgiri .. 168,250 
Ahl-i-Kitab .113 

Ahmad, a name of the prophet 
Muhammad . . . . . . 53 

Ahmed Shah of Gujrat .. 261, 263 
Ahmedabad ' . . . . . - 71 
Ahmednagar . . 157, 184, 240, 241 

Ahriman 128, 188 

Ahsan Allah (see Zafarkhan). 

Ahuji — the name as given in 
the Qisseh of Rustom Manock 
explained . . . . 200-201 

Akbar 67, 72, 159-61, 163, 165, 
182, 202 : Arrival at his Court 
of the English company with 
a letter from Queen 
Ehzabeth .. 110-11,118 

Alampanak wall of Surat . . 183 

Ala-ud-din Khilji, Sultan . . 184 

Albigenses, the ; an offshoot 

of the Manichloeans . . . . 17 

Albuquerque ; his conquest of 

Goa 257 

Aleppo .. .. 110,111,117 

Alexander the Great : Story of 
the Poison-damsel hi connec- 
tion with him . . 77-78 
Points from various versions 

of the story . . 83-86 

Firdousi's version of the 
story . . . . 86-91 

Alexandria : captured by Shahr 
Baraz, general of Khusru 
Parviz . . , . . . . . 24 

Ali, son- in law of Muhammad .51, 53 

AU AdilShah II 242 

Ali Mir Sayyid (see Mir Sayyid 

Amalsad, Amal^r . . * . . 96 

Amanat Khan — governor of 

Surat 138 

Anand Koul, Pandit . . 57, 58 

Anahilapataka . . . . . . 94 

Angarias, the . . . . . . 268 

Anhilwada . . ... . . 95 

Anquetil du Perron ; on the 
script of the Inscriptions in 
the Kanheri caves, 7-8 ; on 
the Malabar Coast Christians, 
15-16 ; on Rustom Manock 
and his son Nowroji 151 ; his 
reference to Rustom Manock' s 
garden 131-32 ; on the Chali- 
bis 264 



A — contd. 

Antioch 23,24 

Anvdr-i Sohili . . . . . . 83 

Apamea . . . . . . . . 23 

Arabia 70, 71 

Arabs, the .. 18, 20, 34, 96 

Aramaic . . . . . . . . 7 

Ardeshir Babegan . . . . 27 

Aristotle, 77, 78 ; — his story of 
the poison-damsel; points col- 
lected from various versions 
of his story 83-86 ; Macoudi's 
reference to this story 92-93 

Armenia . . . . . . . . 25 

Artaima {see Dastgird) . . 39 

Asad Khan, minister of Aurang- 
zeb 136, 204, 205, 208, 209, 

218, 237 
Asfandarmaz (month) 61, 64, 67 
Ashgar Aga {see Safar Aga) . . 183 
Asia Minor . . . . . . 24 

Atash Behram, of Naosari 137, 

139, 253-54 
Athens .. .. ..82 

Augustus Caesar . . . . . . 81 

Aungier Gerald ; President of 
of the Company during Shiva- 
ji's second sack of Surat 189,194 

Aurangzeb, 55, 58, 66, 67, 120 ; 
— his farman about the first 
English traders and his mal- 
treaknent of ti.3 English 
113-15; levying by him of 
the Jaziya 125-27, 141 ; visit 
to his court of Rustam Manock 
135-36, 141, 207-209 ; Charles 
V and Aurangzeb 157 ; his 
ascetic life and bigotry 156- 
62 ; his dislike of music and 
wine 160-61 ; his war with 
Shivaji .. 156-157, 190-96 

Avala (Amvala) Satigrama {see 
Amalsad) . . . . 95, 96 

Avars, the ; an offshoot of the 
Huns . . . . 24, 25, 42 

Avory (see Bridgman). 

Ayyar, Mr. A. Ramanath, 1, 2, 

^ 4, 7, 10, 14, 18 

Azar (month) 64 


Babar .. 160 

Babylon 13 

Badukhshan . . , . . . 262 

Badvard ; name of the treasure 
captured from the Roman 
Emperor by Khusru Parviz 

26, 30, 31, 39 

Bagdad .. .. 28, 92 

Baharji Borah — the richest 
merchant of Surat when Shi- 
vaji sacked the city . . 192 
Bahdur Khan, Subahdar of Gu- 
jarat in Aurangzeb's time . . 194 
Bahmni Kings ; of the Deccan . . 257 
Balurji Naik ; a scout of Shivaji 190 
Bancollee . . . . 216, 217 
Banerji, R. D. . . 94, 95 
Banta^n : in Java . . . . 212 
Barbad, Barboud ; a musician 

of Khusru Parviz 26, 32-34, 40 
Bargosa, Barygaza : modem 

Broach 81 

Barid : the famous horse of 

Khusru Parviz . . . . 39 

" Barlaam and Josephat " ; Pah- 
lavi origin of this story 80-83 

Basra 110, 117 

Bassein .. .. 139, 140, 190 

Batavia 147, 148 

Begum Sahib : sister of Aurang- 
zeb 169 

Berdedj 261 

Bernard, Dr. ; his opinion on the 
script and language of the 
Inscriptions on the Crosses in 

South India 7 

Best, Capt. : his formation of an 

English factory at Surat 112, 118 
Bhagarsath : priests of Navsari 144 
Bharthana — near Surat ..271 

Bhatbhar 65 

BhauDaji, Dr. .. ,. .. 7 

Bhavani, goddess . . . . 186 

Bhima, the , , . . . . 168 




Bhiwardi 246 

Bhonsle family . . . . . . 184 

Biddulpli, Col. : his reference to 

Rustom Maneck's sons 267-69 

Bidpai (see Kalila and Damna) 83 
Bijapur, 70, 156, 184-87, 

240-42, 257 

Bili-Mora 96 

Bisatun 29 

Bithynian Coast, the . . . . 24 

Blochet, M. E 20, 21, 36 

Bodhisattva . . . . 81, 82 

Bokhara . . . . . . . . 262 

Bomanji Rustom ji : a son of 
Rustom Maneck mentioned in 
the despatches of the East 
India Company 104, 105, 109, 
267-69, 310-12, 317; men- 
tioned in the Qisseh of Rustom 
Maneck, 132, 152 ; mentioned 
by Col. Biddulph 269 ; further 
particulars about him from 
the Parsi Prakash, &c., 
271-72 ; named Bahman Beh- 
ram in ceremonies, because 
he was adopted by his uncle 

Behram 272 

Bombay: "the Key of India" 113 
Borivli . . . . . . . . 7 

Boonet, C. : of the EngHsh fac- 
tory at Surat 104, 107, 108, 267 
Brahmins, the : exempted from 
the Jaziya by Muhammad 

Ghori ..163 

Braithwait, Capt : — of the Salis- 
bury Man-of-War . . . . 107 
Bridgman {alias Avory) : a pirate 
who plundered Aurangzeb's 
ships .. .. .. ..114 

Broach 183 

Bruce, John : his reference to 
Rustom Maneck and his 
account of the embassy to the 
court of Aurangzeb 208, 209, 
212-14, 217-38; Summary of 
important events to be 
gathered from his Annals 
about Rustam Maneck and the 

servants of the Company 
230-32 ; his " Annals " and 
" Qisseh " of Rustom Maneck 233 

Buda-Pesth 96 

Buddha Sakya Muni . . 81-83 

Buddhists, the . . . . . . 58 

Buddhaspa, Budhaspa {see 
Joseph — Josaph) . . . . 82 

Bulsar 183 

Burhanpur 167, 172, 174, 216-19, 

Burhanpori gate, of Surat 183, 199 

Burnell, Dr. : first discoverer of 
the Crosses with Pali Inscrip- 
tions in Southern India, 4, 5, 

6, 10, 12, 13, 17 

Burthey, Fr. : on the script 
and language of the Inscrip- 
tions on the Crosses . . 7 

Burzo-Nameh . . . . . . 75 

Cadran : general of Khusru 

Parviz who took Jerusalem . . 44 

Cambay 92, 183 

Cappadocia . . . . 23, 24 

Cappuchin missionaries . . 98, 99 

Carpet of Khusru Parviz — 

described .. 20-21; 34-36 

Carthage . . . . . . . . 24 

Casartelli — Bishop of Salford . . 34 
Cape of Good Hope, the 10(f, 117 
Catherine : her marriage with 

Charles II .. .. 119, 189 

Chaechasta {see Urumiah) . . 25 
Chadna Noshirvan Meherji {see 

Noshirwan) . . . . 255-56 

Chalcedon .. .. 24, 42 

Chalibi, Mohammad Saleh .. 264 

Chalibmi Masjid, at Surat 258 : 
an inscription on it . . . . 320 

Chalibis, the .. .. 258-265 

Chalibi Osman {see Osman Cha- 

Chalukya Copper Plates : found 
at Dhamadachha . . 94-99 



C — contd. 

Chandana : great grand-father 

of Rustam Manock . . . . 143 

Chaprand, in Tibet . . . . 98 

Charles II and Catherine : their 

marriage treaty .. 119,189 

Charles V : compared with Au- 
rangzeb . . . . . . 157 

Chaul 190 

Chauth, the .. .. 187-196 

Cherabat . . . . . . 70 

Chikli 183 

Child, Sir John : left Surat for 
Bombay to be beyond the 
reach of the Moghuls . . 113-14 

Chint-Mekran 28 

Chosroes I. 19, 27 {see Naushirvan). 
Chosroes II. 19, 151 {see Khusru 

Christ 42 

Christians, the : Khusru Parviz' s 
war with the Christians, 23 ; 
of the Malabar Coast 14-18; 
their first advent to India 
14-18 ; Anquetil on the Christ- 
ians 15-16 ; the Christians, 
aM-i Kitah 113; Manichoean 
Christians . . . . . . 17 

Cilicia 25 

Cochin . . . . . . . . 15 

Columbus . . . . . . 91 

Congvantine .*». . . . . 43 

Constantinople 24, 25, 28-30, 41, 

42, 44, 109 
Cooper, Dr. Dossabhoy : owner 
of the house at Surat formerly 
occupied by the English East 
India Company . . 234-35 

Cross, the Holy : captured by 
Khusru Parvez at Jerusalem 

23, 42-43 
Crosses, the : with Pahlavi In- 
scriptions in the Travancore 
State, 1-18; decipherment of 
the Inscriptions on them 4-7 ; 
vr^ried decipherment of the 
inscription on the Cross in 
the Church of Mount St. 

Thomas 9-10; the Script of 
the Inscriptions on the Crosses 
7-8 ; why the decipherment 
offers difficulties 9 ; decipher- 
ment of the Pahlavi Inscrip- 
tion on the Kadamattam cross 
11-14; who were the Christians 
who put up Crosses with 
Pahlavi Inscriptions 14-18; 
Malabar Coast Crosses . . 8 
CroAvn, the : of Khusru Parviz 29 
Crusades, the . . . . 109, 117 

Ctesiphon 20, 22, 25, 36, 38, 39, 44 

Dadu and his panth . . . . 165 

Dahod : birthplace of Aurangzeb 156 
Dal Lake— of Kashmir 46, 70, 71 
Damaun : visited by Rustom 
Maneck, 136-39, 141, 155, 253 ; 
Osman's Ship carried there by 
the Portuguese 138 ; Sidi Aii 
Chalibi at Damaun 26 1 ; names 
of some of its governors . . 265 
Damondavee .. 216-17, 236 

Damascus . . . . . . 23 

Dandeh-Rajpur : visited by 
Rustom Manock, 136, 141, 
155, 181, 187, 190; 237-52; 
factorv of the English at 239 ; 
Khafi^Khan on Dandeh 240; 
attacked by Shivaji . . 242-46 

D'Andrada, Fr. '. . . . 98,99 

Dar-i-Meher, of Naosari . . 137 

Dara : captured by Khusru 
Parviz . . . . . . . . 42 

Dara Shikoli — brother of Au- 
rangzeb . . . . 156, 158 

Darab, Dastur : instructor of 
Anquetil . . . . . . 151 

Ddramyo-ambo : pomegranate- 
like mango- tree . . 95, 96 

Darius : last of the Achaemenian 
Kings. . . . . . . . . 84 

Darjeeling . . . . . . 3 

Dastan : the rich carpet of 
Khusru Parviz . . . . 35 

Dastgard : attacked by Hei'a- 
chus . . . . 25, 39 




Daulat Khan ; admiral of Shi- 

vaji 245-46 

Dead Sea, the 40 

Deccan, the .. 156-58, 167-184 
De Laet : on Surat . . . . 183 

Delhi .. ., 135, 187, 209 

~] pseudo-Ar- 
De Regimene Principum ! istotalean 
De Secretis Secretorum ,■ • work, 

J 77-78 

Desai, S. M 95,96 

Desidui, Fr 98, 99 

Dhamalachchha, near Gandevi 95,^96 
Dhamanachchha . . . . 95 

Dhamadachchha — Dhamdachha, 


Dhamdachha- Kacholi : man- 
goes of .. .. 95, 96 

Dhup Nirang 146 

Diez, M. de : on Sidi Ali Chalibi 


Dilir Khan : general of Aurang- 
zeb 187, 194 

Divydn i this name of the 
" Qisseh " of Rustom Manock 
explained .. .. 201-202 

Dry den : his " Aurangzebe " 161 

Dutch, l«le 102, 118; their 
rivalry with the Portuguese 110 

East India Companies ; de- 
scribed 115-120; rivahy 
amongst tlie members 220-30 ; 
English East India Company 
—its origin 102, 103, 108, 115, 116 
Edessa . . . . . . . . 41 

Egypt . . . . 22-24, 41, 109 

Elephants — of Khusru Parviz 31-32 
Elizabeth, Queen : charter 
granted by her to some Eng- 
lish Companies, 110-111, 115, 117 
Elphinstone ; on the date of the 
imposition of the Jaziya 172, 174 

English, the : their advent in 
India 109-11 ; first English 
embassy at the Moghul Court 
111 ; first English factory 
at Surat .. 112-115; 133-35 

Enthoven, Mr. R. E 75 

Epigraphica Indica : reading 
given in it of the Inscription 
on the Mount St. Thomas 
Cross 6, 10 

Estrangelo characters . . . . 16 

Faizi ; Akbar's courtier . . 59 

Farjana : architect of Khusru 

Parviz 38 

Farhad : lover of Shirin . . 29 

Faridun, King 80, 124 ;— his 

cow- shaped mace . . . . 27 

Farroukhan ; general of Khusru 

Parviz . . . . . . . . 44 

Farrukhsiyar . . . . , . 183 

Ears 182 

Farvardin (month) . . 19, 20, 36 

Fateh Kadal ; third bridge on 
the Jhelum . . . . . . 46 

Fath Khan,Siddi ; ruler of Jan- 
jira . . . . 242, 243, 256 

Firdausi ; his account of the 
Fakdis, the golden crown of 
Khusru Parvez 27-29; his 
account of the ♦musicians iA 
Khusru Parviz 32-34; his 
account of the Carpet of 
Khusru Parviz, 35-36 ; his ac- 
count of the palace of Khusru 
at Madayan 38-39 ; On the 
Holy Cross captured by Khusru 
Parviz 43 ; his version of the 
story of the Poison-damsel 86-92 

Fire- temple (Atash Behram) ; 
of Naosari 254 ; near Lake 
Urumiah, destroyed by Herac- 
lius 25 

FiruzShah 163 

Florent, M. ; head- priest of the 
Malabar Coast . . . . 15 



F — concld. 

Framjee Rustomjee ; Son of 
Rustom Manock ; mentioned 
in the documents of the East 
India Company 104, 105, 109, 
268, ; 310, 317 ; mentioned in 
the ' Qisseh ' of Rustom Ma- 
nock 132, 152 ; confined by 
Moumin Khan . . . . 271 

Fryer, Dr. : On the Jaziya 168, 
172, 174-75; on Dandeh- 
Rajpuri . . . . . . 240 


Oalilee 43 

Oandevi .. ..111,183,190,196 

Oarhwal 98 

Oayer, Sir John ; a contempo- 
rary of Rustom Manock 149, 
150 ; governor of Bombay — 
imprisoned by the Moghuls, 
114-15, 211, 214-17; his 
quarrel with Sir N. Waite 
(q.v.) 222-25 ; his imprison- 
ment 224-26 

Gazedee Khan : general of the 
Moguls . . . . 219, 221 

Oj^on, M. E 20 

Celgawn , near Aurangabad 216-17 
Genoa — its trade with the 

East .. 109 

Gesta Romanorum . . . . 77 
Gharife .. .i> .. ..268 

Ghants, the . . . . 157, 184 

Ghiyasuddin Khan — governor 

of Surat in Aurangzeb's time 113 
Ghulam Mohi-ud-din : gover- 
nor of the Sikhs at Shrinagar 58 
Gibbon : his account of the 
capture of the Cross 23, 31, 32, 

33, 39, 43 

Gingerah 246-47 

Goa 110, 117, 139, 140, 141, 155, 
186 ; — Rustom Maneck's visit 

to Goa 256-67 

God : his names inserted on the 
Mihrab of the Masjid of Shah 
Hamdan 50 

Golconda . . . . . . 15^ 

Gothaskar, Mr. P. B 94 

Grant Duff : on the date of the 

imposition of the Jaziya 172, 

174 : on the Siddis . . . . 251 

Greece . . . . . . . . 24 

Grove, C. J. H. : his opinion of 

Rustom's son Nowroji (q.v.) 150-51 
Curz-i gdvsdr — cow- shaped mace 

of Faridun 27 

Gushtasp, King . . . . . . 27 


Hajphaedaspa . . . . . . 82 

Haidar Malik (see Malik Haidar) 

Haji Bektash : founder of the 

Bektashi sect of the Chalibis 

Haji Hajaz Beg : his house at 
Surat rented by the English 
for their factory 135, 204, 233-34 

HajiKhalfa 262 

Haji Said Begg : one of the 
richest men of Surat at its 
sack by Shivaji 195, 198, 199 
Hajira : health resort near Surat 145 
Hamadan . . . . . . 46 

Hammer Joseph : on Siddi Ali 
Chalibi .. .. 259-60 

Hari Parbat . . . . # . . 72 

Hariram : Hindu officer under 
Malik Haidar (g. v.) .. ..60 

Harlez, Prof . : his reading and 
translation of the Pahlavi 
Inscription on the Crosses of 
Southern India . . 6, 10, 13 

Hasan Shah, Sultan : descend- 
ant of Sikandar But-shikan 
{q.v.) — rebuilt the Jama 
Masjid at Shrinagar 47, 56-58 

Hassan Ammed ; his merchant 
ships captured by British 
pirates . . 214 

Hassan Mirza : Shah of Sind 261-62 
Haugh, Dr. M. ; his reading 
and translation of the Pahlavi 
Inscriptions on the Crosses of 
Southern India .... . . 6 



H — concld. 

Hawkins, Capt. : on Naosari 254-55 
Hawkins, William : Commander 

of the first English vessel 

that came to India 111, 118 

Haziat Bal : Persian inscription 

at .. .. 54,65,70,71 

Hazrat Sultan : another name 

of Makhdum Shah (q.v.) . . 73 

Helena 43 

Henry Every : an English pirate 241 

Heraclius, Emperor : his war 
with Khusru Parviz — des- 
troyed fire-temple near Lake 
Uriimiah . . 22-25, 30, 43, 45 

Heras, Fr 147-48 

Holy Ghost, the .. 2, 13 

Hormaz — on the Persian Gulf 

110, 117 
Hormazd (day) . . . . . . 36 

Hormazd (Hormisdes) : father 

of Khusru Parviz 20, 22, 151 
Hosten, Fr. : on the Inscrip- 
tions on the Crosses of South- 
ern India . . . . 3, 10, 14 
Hubli: factory of the English 

at — sacked by Shivaji . . 189 

Hugli : its sack by the English 113 
Humayun, Emperor 182, 261, 262 
Huns, the . . . . . . 24 


Ibn Baluta : visited Goa . . 257 
Ibrahim Ahmed Magri : added 
a portion to the Jama Masjid 
of Shrinagar . . . . 56-59 

Iconium . . . . . . . . 262 

Id of Qurban 57 

Id of Rauza (Ramzan) . . . . 57 

Ilahi Calendar, the . . ' . . 67 
Inayat Khan — governor of Su- 
rat during its first sack by 
Shivaji . . . . 190-91 

Indian Antiquary, the . . 3, 4, 6 

Inscriptions, Persian, of 
Kashmir ; deciphered with 

text and translation 46-74 ; 
on the Masjid of Shah Ham- 
dan 46-54 ; on the Juma 
Masjid 54-70; at Hazrat Bal 
70-71 ; on a bridge at Rena- 
wari 71 ; on the zyarat-gah 
of Shah Makhdum 72-74 ; in 
the Kanheri Caves — their 

script 7-8 

Iranshah Malekshah : author of 
Saddar Nazin . . . . . . 176 

Ishkhari — a village of Kashmir 70 
Ismal Effendi— a Chalibi .. 264 

Italy 24 

Itbar Khan : governor of Surat 207 
Itiqad Khan : governor of 
Kashmir in Shah Jehan's time 

62, 63, 65 
Izdigardes {See Yazdagard). 


Jacobite-Syrian Church ; 
at Kadamattam . . . . 2 

Jacobs, Joseph ; traces the 
origin of ' Barlaam and Jo- 
sephat' .. .. 81-82 

Jagat gura: a title of Akbar .. 165 
Jahn Burzin : architect of the 
time of Faridun — designed the * 
Fakdis (q.v.) .. .... 27 

Jai Singh : general of Aurangzeb 

187, 193 
Jahia ..> .. >. 187 

Jamasp : minister of Gushtasp 27 
Jamasp Asa, Jamshed Jamasp : 
a learned priest of Naosari 146-47 
James I .. .. Ill, 118 

Jamshed, King .. .. 124, 134 

Jamshed Kaikobad, author of 
' Qisseh ' of Rustom Manock : 
120-21, 123-25, 127, 132, 140, 

190, 205, 249 

Janjira 187, 189, 190, 238-39 ;— 
Described by Khafi Khan 
239-40 ; the Siddis of Janjira 
240-52 ; Shivaji's attempt at 
conquering Janjira . . 243-46 

Jassavala, R. J. . . . . 122 



J — concld. 

Jaswant Singh, Rajah . . . . 172 

Java 110, 212 

Jaziya, the : Capitation- tax im- 
posed by Aurangzeb — Parsees 
and others relieved of this tax 
at the instance of Rustom 
Maneck 125-127, 141; tax 
described 162-79 ; Orme on 
Jaziya 163-64; three classes 
for assessment 164 ; Shivaji's 
protest against its imposition 
164-67 ; Fryer on the Jaziah 
over the Parsees 168 ; des- 
cribed by Manucci 169-70; 
described by Todd 170-71; 
the date of its imposition 172- 
174 ; the rate of the Jaziya, 
174-75; the Saddar on the 
Jaziya, 175-79 ; its imposition 
in Persia . . . . ..179 

Jeddah . . . . 138, 209, 257 

Jehan-Bordi . . . . . . 96 

Jehangir, Emperor, 55, 57-59, 
65, 67, 71, 156, 160, 161, 
165, 182, 235, 266 ;— arrival 
at his court of Hawkins 111, 
118 ; his permission to the 
English to settle factories 
111; his dislike of the Por- 
tuguese .. .. .. 112 

Jerusalem : conquered by Khus- 

ruParviz .. 23, 25, 41-43 

Jesuit^, the . .^ .. 110, 117 

Jhelum, the . . . . 46, 72 

John, son of Patricius {See 

Yahya ibn Batriq). 
John IV, Duke of Braganza . . 110 
Jordon, the . . . . . . 43 

Joseph, Mr. T. K. . . 3, 4, 18 

Joseph — Josaph : a variant of 
Bodhaspa {q.v.) . . . . 82 

Judah al Harizi : author of the 
Hebrew version of the pseudo- 
Aristotalean work Secretum 
Secretorum . . . . . . 79 

Jumma Mas j id, of Shrinagar : 
Inscriptions of 54-70 ; its 
history .. .. 57-58 

Kabul .. 65 

Kachchha Valigrama {See Ka- 
chheli) .. .. 95, 96 

Kachheli, Kachholi . . . . 96 

Kadamattam : in Travancore 
1-3 ; decipherment of the 
Pahlavi Inscriptions on the 
Cross of its Church .. 11-14 

Kaes, Kayanians, the . . . . 36 

Kaid, Indian King . . . . 87 

Kaikhosro, King . . . . 124 

Kaiomars . . . . . . 125 

Kalagrama 96 {See Khergam). 
Kali : the temple of — in Kash- 
mir 47, 54 

' Kalila and Damna ' : its 

origin .. 80, 82, 83 

Kalhan Bhimri (Bhiwadi) . . 246 

Kalvach 96 

Kallyan .. .. 186,190,239 

Kanheri caves : Pahlavi inscrip- 
tions of . . . . 7, 8, 16 
Karmadeva, Chalukya : two. 

copper plates of his time . . 94-99 
Kamatic, the . . . . 185, 187 

Karwar : factory of the English 

at — sacked by Shivaji . . 189 

Kashmir 46, 47, 49, 56, 57, 59, 

60, 62, 64-66, 70, 72 

Katamarram Cross . . . . 3 

Katib-i Ajimi — a Persian poet 260 
Katib-i Roumi : a name of Sidi 

Ali Chalibi (^.v.) .. ..260 

Kaus, King 80 

Kayam Kullam . . . . . . 5 

Kend : so Kaid, King of India, 

called by Ma^oudi . . . . 93 

Kenneri (Khanderi) Island ; 
fight for its possession between 
the British and Shivaji 245-46 

Keran, Capt. — who is this Keran 
who was chief of Damaun 

138, 265-66 

Keshwad — Iranian hero . . 129 

Khafi Khan : on the Siddis . . 250 

Khanderi {See Kenneri). 



K — concld. 

Khareghat, Mr. M. P 148 

Khazr 69 

Khazars, the — offshoot of the 
Huns 24 

Khergam 96 {See Kalagrama). 

Khorassan . . . . . . 262 

Khordad (day) . . . . 19, 20 

Khotan 262 

Khowarezm . . . . . . 262 

Khudawand Khan : another 
name of Ashgar Aga {q.v.) . . 183 

Khulasatu-1-tawarikh . . . . 182 

Khurdad sal day . . . . 19 

Khurram, Prince (Shah Jehan) 235 

Khusru Parviz : remarkable 
events of his reign 19-45 ; 
his remarkable carpet des- 
cribed 20-21 ; his marriage 
with Mary, daughter of Mau- 
rice 22 ; his relations with 
Maurice 23 ; his war with 
Heraclius 23-25 ; prophecy of 
Muhammad about him 43-44 ; 
eighteen remarkable events 
and things of his reign 25-43 ; 
his seals described 36-37 ; 
his riches and magnificence 39-40 

Kidel : an English pirate . . 114 

tiptehak 262 
okely 216-17 

Kolah-push : the English so 
called 134, 136, 204, 209, 

219, 220, 237 
Konia (Iconium) . . . . 262 

Konkan, the . . 184, 186, 240, 242 
Kottayam Crosses 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 

. 14, 16 
Kouloukarens, the : fishers and 
sailors of the Malabar Coast 16 

Krishnaji Anant : writer of the 
life of Shivaji . . . . 186, 192 

Kurdestan 262 

Kurla 189 

Ladakh 58 

Lane-Poole: on Aurangzeb and 
the Jaziya 157-61, 167, 172, 174 

Lassha . . . . . . . . 98 

Lawrence, Sir Walter : wrote 

a book on Kashmir 59, 70 
Lisbon .. ., .. .. 110 

Loewenthal, Rev. : decipherer 
of some inscriptions found in 
Shrinagar, 48, 49, 51, 55, 60, 

61, 67, 69 


Ma'asir-i Alamgiri 
Macdonald, Prof. 
Machhli Bandar 

q.v.) .. 
Magoudi 22, 31, 

ference to four 

sions of Kaid . . 
Madayan ; Khusru' s palace 

38-39, 44 (See Ctesiphon). 
Madhvacharya : founder of a 

Vedanta School . . . . '5 

'Madigan mah Farvardin, roz 

Khordad' 19 

Madonna — Church of . . . . 15 

Magi, Magav, M^gous, the ^'8, 43 
Mahableshwar . . . . . . 95 

Maharashtra . . . . . . 184 

Mahidhara, Pandita . . . . 95 

Mahmud Khwaja Dideh-mari : 
builder of the well in the Juma 
Masjid of Kashmir . . 68-70 

Mahmud Sultan . . . . 183 

Mahrattas, the : their rise to 
power 156-57, 167, 184-85 

Mahuli — this fort attacked by 
Shivaji .. .. 173, 194 

Maid servants — of Khusru Par- 
viz 32 

Maji^sis 161 (See Magi). 

65, 66 


36 ;— his re- 
rare posses- 

. . 92 



.. 95 



M — contd. 

Makhdum Shah : Inscription on 

his zyarat-gah at Kashmir 172-74 
Malabar .. 14, 17, 18 

c" Malabar Coast Crosses . . . . 8 

Malabar Coast Christians 14-18 

Malcolm, Sir J. : on the magni- 
ficence of Khusru Parviz . . 40 
Malik Ambar : Abyssinian officer 
of the King of Bijapur 184-85 

Malik Asad 260 

Malik Esud : Mahomedan Gov- 
ernor of Damaun . . . . 263 

Malik Haidar : reconstructed 
the Juma Masjid of Shrinagar 
in Jehangir's time . . 57-60 

Ma'mun Khalif . . . . . . 79 

Mango -tree : walking 96 ; pome- 
granate-like 95, 96 ; mangoes 
of Dhamadachha Kacholi. 95-96 
Mangalore . . . . 5, 6 

Mani 5, 17 

Manichseans, the . . 5, 17 

Manigraman : Settlement of 
the Persian Christians in 
Southern India . . . . 5 

Mankar, Mr. J. L. ; author of a 

life of Shiva ji 201 

Mankir : capital of King Porus. 93 
Manucci Niccolao : his account 
of Aurangzeb 162, 208 ; on 
the Jaziya imposed by Au- 
rangzeb . . . . 169-75 

Marat-al-Mamalak : work of 

travels by Sidi Ali Chalibi 258-59 
Marco Polo . . . . . . 14 

Margalla Pass — ^near Rawalpindi 46 
Mar Shapur : a Christian emi- 
grant to Southern India — 
name of the writer of the 
Inscriptions . . . . 13, 14 

Martyrologium of the Roman 

Church 83 

' Marujal-Zahab ' : a work of 

Ma90udi 92 

Maruvan Sapir Iso {See Mar 

Mary : daughter of Maurice and 
wife of Khusru Parviz • . 22 

Mashita : Khusru Parviz' place 40-41 
Masjid of Shah Hamadan : 

Persian Inscription thereon 46-54 
Maslipatam : Establishment of 

a factory by the English 111, 
118, 210, 214, 215, 216, 250 

Matthews, T., Commodore : 
helped Nowroji {q. v.), son of 
Rustam Maneck . . 267-70 
Maurice, Emperor 22, 23, 33, 

41, 42, 44 
Mawal — a village of Puna . . 185 
Mawalis, the . . 185, 190, 200 
Mecca . . . . 20, 43, 159, J87 

Medina 20, 21, 35, 36, 43, 70, 

71, 159 
Mediomah; one of the authors 
of Saddar Nasr , , . . 176 

Meherjirana, E. S 123 

Mehlevhi Dervishes . . . . 262 

Mehran : learned man of the 

court of Kaid (q.v.) .. 87, 91 
Meidenhall : messenger from 

Queen EHzabeth to Akbar 111, 118 
Minochehr, King .. 129, 202 

Minochehr, E. J., Dastur : Edi- 
tor of " Qisseh " of Rustam 
Maneck .. 121-25, 140 

Mir Sayyad Ali : original name 

of Shah Jamadan (^^.f.) 46, 51 
Mir Shams Iraqi — a Shiah who 
destroyed the Masjid of the 
Sunnis at Kashmir . . . . 47 

Mirat-i Ahmadi 183 

Moab 40 

Mobads, the 8 

Mocha 207, 242 

Mogous, Mougous, Mongous 

characters . . . . . . 8 

Momeen Khan : governor of 

Surat 104 

Morar Pant, Peishwa . . . . 186 

Moropant Pingle ; — a leader of 
Shivaji's army during the 
sack of Surat 190,196,200 

Morris, M 259, 260 

Moumin Khan : governor of 
Surat .. ,." .. 271,310 



M — concld. 

Moundu Karens, the ; converted 
Malabari Christians . . . . 16 

Mount Church Cross . . 4, 6 

Muazzan : son of Aurangzeb 161, 194 

Muhammad, prophet 51, 53, 57, 
71 ; — his prophecy in con- 
nection with the capture of 
Jerusalem by Khusru Parviz 
43-44 ; his hairs 70 ; on the 
Jaziya . . . . . . 162 

Muhammad Gori . . . . 163 

Muhammad Ibrahim Qaramauli ; 

original name of Asad Khan 

iq.v.) 208 

Muhammad Murad, Prince . . 65 
Muhammad Shah, Sultan 47, 56, 57 
Mukaji Anandrao : leader of 

Shivaji's army . . 200, 201 

Multan .. .. .. ..92 

Mumtaz Mahal . . . . 156 

Munshi Dossabhoy Sorabji . . 123 
' Muntakhabu-1-Lubab ' : work 

of Khafi Khan 173-74, 240 

Murad — brother of Aurangzeb 

156, 189, 190 
Muvattupula — in Travancore . . 2 
Mycene . . . . . . . . 41 

Mylapore inscriptions . . . . 3 


Nagasarika (Naosari) . . 95, 97 
Nagmandal (Naosari) . . . . 97 
Naodar, King 129 

Naoroz festival : disliked by 
Aurangzeb . . . . . . 161 

Naosari 95, 97 ; — its fire-temple 
254 ; described by Hawkins 
254 ; visited by Rustam 
Maneck 137, 139, 141? 155, 
253-56 ; descent of its priest- 
ly families . . 142-43 
Naosari gate, of Surat . . . . 183 

Narnol 172 

Narses , . . . . . . . 41 

Nasik : conquered by Zafarkhan 65 

Naushirwan, the Just 19, 22, 27, 45 
Neryosang Dhawal 142-43, 147 

Netherlands, the . . . . 1 10 

Ninav, Nineveh . . .. 11, 13 

Nirangdin . . . . . . 137 

Niravana . . . . . . S*** 

Nizam-ul-mulk . . . . . . 240 

Noldeke, Dr 21,25,41 

Norris, Sir W. : Ambassador to 
the Mogul Court — went in 
company of Rustam Maneck 
208-17 ; reasons for the failure 
of his embassy 218; proper 
date of his embassy 217-18; 
the Koldh-push (EngHshman) 
of the ' Qisseh ' of Rustam 
Maneck 219-20 ; his quarrel 
with Sir W. N. Waite 220-21 
Noshirwan (Nusserwanji Meher- 
ji) : Rustam Maneck's assist- 
ant 127, 137, 143, 144, 149, 
176 ; Rustam's host at Nav- 
sari ; — his identity ascertain- 
ed 255-56 

Nowrojee : son of Rustom Ma- 
neck — first Parsee to go to 
England ; his name referred 
to in the documents of the 
East India Company and in 
an old record of the Parsee 
Punchayet 104-109, 121, 150- , 
53, 268-69 ; 310-18 ; his name 
mentioned in the ' Qisseh ' 132 
Nur Din : bought one hair of the 
prophet Muhammad for a lac 
of rupees * . . . . -* • • 70 

Nur Jehan . . . . . . 70 

Old Testament 113 

Olympus : father of Alexander 85 
Omar, Khalif .. .. 21,35,36 
Oman, sea . . . . 30, 31 
Orme, Robert ; his account of 
the establishment of the Eng- 
lish factory and trade at 
Surat 110, 112 ; on the Jaziya 
163-64, 172, 174 ; on the sack 
of Surat by Shivaji 190 ; on 
the Siddis 246 




Osman Chalibi : capture of his 
ship by the Portuguese 257-58, 
release of his ship at the in- 
stance of Rustam Maneck 138-41 
Ovington . . . . . . 159 

Oxenden, Sir George : President 
of the Bombay factory of the 
English 189, 191, 193 

Pahlavi : difficulties met with 
in deciphering inscriptions in 
Pahlavi 9-10 

Paitaraspa . . . . . . 82 

Pakhali : place where Saint 
Shah Hamdan of Kashmir 
died ..47 

Palermo . . . . . . . . 83 

Panchatni-vadi : garden given 
away in charity by Rustom 

Maneck 146 

Panch Mahal 156 

Pandits of Kashmir . . . . 47 
Panjim (New Goa) . . . . 257 
Panvel 246 

Palaces of Khusru Parviz — de- 
' scribed .. .. 38-40 

Palestine 23 

Pali Hill of Bandra .. ..239 

Pana,%fort .,- .. 187-242 

Parnella : seat of Aurangzeb's 
Camp in 1701 . . . . 216-218 

Parsee priests : Bhagarsath 144 ; 
Godavra 145 ; San j ana . . 144 

Parsees : of Surat 1, 168, 182- 
83 ; — Dr. Fryer on the Parsees 
of Surat 168 ; Sir Streynsham 
Master on the Parsees of 
Naosari . . . . . . 254 

Parviz (see Khusru Parviz). 

Patel, B. B. .. 207,209,218 

Patel Rustom ji Dorabji : help- 
ed the English in defending 
Bombay 241 

Pavdi, Faridum Kamdin : Rus- e 
tam Manock's great great 
grandfather . . . . . . 144 

Pehderla : seige of . . . . 244 

Pelusium ; captured by Shahr 
B&raz (q.v.) .. .. ..24 

Penzer, N. M. 75, 77-80, 84, 86, 91 
Persia : its relations with Rome 21-25 
Peter van den Bracke : founder 
of the first Dutch factory at 

Surat 119 

Philip II 109, 110 

Phocas ; revolted against Mau- 
rice .. 23, 25, 41, 42, 44 
Phocian, Emperor . . . . 22 
Poison- Damsel : her various 
types explained 76-77 ; Alex- 
ander and the poison- damsel 
77-79 ; points from various 
versions of the story 83-86 ; 
Firdousi's version of the story 86-92 
Poole, Mr. R. S. .. ..41 

Poona 186,190 

Portugal .. 109, 110, 112 

Portuguese, the : their rivalry 
with the Dutch 109-11 ; their 
rivalry with the English 112 ; ■ 
their attack on pilgrim ships 

182, 186 
Porus : Indian King . . 81, 93 

Pourushaspa . . . . . . 82 

Pratabghar Fort 186 

Prataprao Guzur : leader of 
Shivaji's army during his 
sack of Surat 190, 200, 201 

Pravarsena II, King of Kashmir 47 
Proby, Mr. : his relations with 
Sir W. Waite . . . . 227-29 

Purandhar fort 173, 185, 187, 

193, 194, 243 


Qariah-i Chera : a tank built by 
Khwaja Mahmud in the pro- 
vince of Cherahat . . . . 69 

' Qisseh ' — of Rustom Manock : 
Life story of Rustom written 
in Persian verse by Jamshed 



» Q — concld. 

Kaikobad 120-141 ; its author 
121 ; the MSS. of the ' Qisseh ' 
121-23 ; summary of the ' Qis- 
seh ' 124-41 ; first sack of 
Surat by Shivaji referred to 

in it 196-99 

Qutb-ud-din, King . . . . 47 

Rain- ceremony : connected with 

the name of Shah Makhdum 72-73 
Rajaram — son of Shivaji . . 186 
* Rajasthan ' : on the Jaziya . . 170 
Rajgarh (Raigarh) fort 185, 187, 193 
Rajpur (See Dandeh-Rajpur). 
Rajputs, the . . . . 160, 167 

Ramanuja . . . . . . 5 

Ramayana, the . . . . . . 5 

Ramev : prince of the Marathas 184 
Ramnagar . . . . , . 196 

Ramzan Id . . . . . . 57 

Rander ; port of Surat . . 183 

Ratanbai ; wife of Rustom 

Manock . . . . 132, 152 

Ratnagiri . . . . . . 244 

Rawalpindi . . . . . . 46 

Remaud, M 258 

Renawar : inscription on its 

bridge 71 

Rewadanda (See Dandeh-Raj- 
pur) 239 

Roe, Sir Thomas : first English 
ambassador from James I 
to the Moghul Court 111, 118, 235 
Roman Empire . . . . . . 22 

Rome ; its relations with Persia 22-25 
Roum 87 (See Constantinople). 
Rudolf van Gaen ; commodore 

of the Dutch 244 

Rumi (Syriac) language " . . 79 

» Rustom — son of Zal . . . . 125 

' Rustam Manock ; broker of the 
East India Company 108-9 ; 
133-35; 203-212; his three 
sons — their dispute with the 
Enghsh factors, mentioned 

in the documents of the 
Companies 103-109, 132; 
Rustom's Life-Story 120-55 ; 
Parsis and other people reliev- 
ed of the Jaziya at his 
instance 125-27 ; relief given 
to the people by him at the 
sack of Surat 127-28 ; his cha- 
rities 129-30 ; his garden, 
referred to by Anquetil 131, 
132, 146; his visit to the 
Court of Aurangzeb in com- 
pany of the English factor 
135-36, 207-18; his visit to 
Dandeh-Rajpur, Damaun and 
Naosari 136-37, 237-52; re- 
lease of the ship of Osman 
Chalibi by the Portuguese at 
his instance 138-40; his 
pedigree and descent 142-43 ; 
important events, with dates, 
of his life 153-55 ; where was 
he during the first sack of 
Surat 197-99 ; Rustampura, 
a quarter of Surat, founded 
by him 146 ; his name com- 
memorated in Dhup Nirang 
146-47 ; his name mentioned 
in an ancient Dutch record 
147-48 ; appointed broker for 
the "United Trade" by Sir 
N. Waite 225; friction with 
Waite 226-28 ; Bruce's Annals 
about Rustom 230-32 ; parti- 
culars about the house secured 
by Rustom for the New Eng- 
lish Company , 233-35 ; his 
visit to Goa to represent the 
case of Osman Chalibi 256-57 ; 
mentioned in Sir N. Waite' s 

Sa'd : conqueror of Persia 20, 36 
Saddar Nazm : on the Jaziya 

127, 176-79 
Saddar Nasr . . . . . . 175 

Sadiq Khan : minister of Je- 
hangir . . . . . . 71 

Safar Aga (Ashgar Aga) . . 183 

Sahu — son of Sambhaji . . . . 156 



S — contd. 

Sain : general of Khusru Parviz 24 

Salford 4 

Salsette 189 

Sambhaji .. .. 156, 187 

Sanjan . . . . . . . . 96 

Sanjana, D. P. : his reading 
and rendering of the Pahlavi 
inscriptions on the Mount 
^ Cross in Southern India 7, 9, 13 
Sankaracharya . . . . . . 5 

Saran, Capt. — of Bassein 139, 140 
Sargash (See Sergius). 
Sarkar, Prof. : on the Jaziya 
162-65, 172, 174 ; on Shivaji's 
sack of Surat 191-92 ; on the 
Siddis .. .. 250-51 

Satnamis, Satnarinis, the : a 

sect of Hindu devotees 159, 172 
Seals of Khusru Parviz : their 

uses 36-37 

Secretum Secretorum : a pseudo- 
Aristotalean work 77-78 ; 
Sources of this work . . 79-80 

Sergius (Sargash) : a musician 
of Khusru Parviz 26, 32-34 ; 
St. Sergius, Bishop of An- 
tioch identified with Sargash 
of the Shah-Nameh . . 33-34 

Seth, Sett : a family name, — its 
signification . . . . . . 142 

Seth Jalbhoy Ardesar : 8tli des- 
cendant of Rustam Manock 
1^2, 103, 122^ 123, 148, 205- 

207, 209, 218 
Seth Kavasji Jalbhoy : 8th 
descendant of Rustom Manock 

101, 122 
Seth Kaikhusro Rustomji— a 
descendant of Rustom Ma- 
nock 123 

Seth Khandan Family : 
founder Rustom Manock 




Seth Manockji Merwanji : sixth 

in descent from Rustom 

Manock . . 121-23, 

Seth Manockji Navroji . . 

Setti, Satti (See Seth) .. 



Sevagi (See Shivaji) . . . . 2^6 

Shabdiz : the Roman horse of 

Khusru Parviz 26, 29, 39, 40 
Shah Hamdan : Mahomedan 

saint of Kashmir 46, 47, 49, 

51, 52, 72 
Shah Jehan 55, 60, 61, 65-67, 

156, 157, 160, 161, 165, 185, 

186, 208, 235 
Shah Nameh . . . . 80, 86 

Shahar Baraz : general of Khus- 
ru Parviz . . . . 23, 25 

Shahbaz Khan : general of 
Murad 189 

Shahji : father of Shivaji 184, 

185, 201 

Shaista Khan : viceroy of the 
Deccau .. .. 186, 190 

" Shatroiha-i Airan " . . . . 13 

Sheikh Sulfee : governor of 
Ahmedabad . . . . . . 1 12 

Shirin : wife of Khusru Parviz 

26, 29, 30, 40 

Shivaji : his sack of Surat, 113, 
120, 127-28, 141, 179-203 ; his 
war with Aurangzeb 156-57 ; 
the ' Qisseh ' of Rustom Ma- 
neck on the sack of Surat 
by Shivaji 179-81 ; ' Shiva 
ghani ' of the Qisseh 180, 188 ; 
his ancestry 184-85 ; his life 
before the sack of Surat 
185-87 ; referred to as Shiva 
by Shah Abbas II in his letter 
to Aurangzeb 188 ; his rela- 
tions with the English 189 ; 
his first sack of Surat 190-93 ; 
his second sack 193-96 ; his 
attack on Daudeh-Rajpuri 242-46 

Shiveh ghani — same as Shivaji 
{q.v.) 127-29 

Shuja : brother of Aurangzeb . . 156 

Siavakhsh : one of the authors 

of Saddar Nasr . . . . 176 

Siavakhsh : son of King Kaus . . 8^0 

Siddis, the — of Janjira and 
Dandeh-Rajpur 114, 187, 189, 
190, 239-43; the dates of 
their rule 247-49 ; their attack 



S — concld. 

on Bombay 252 ; referred to 
in the ' Qisseh ' of Rustom 
Maneck . . . . . . 246 

Siddi Ali Chalibi : founder of 
the Chalibis 258-59 ; his arrival 
in India .. .. 260-62 

Siddi Fath Khan : ruler of Jan- 
jira .. .. 242-43, 250 

Siddi Qasam (See Yaqut Khan) 
243-45 : this Siddi the same 
as Siddi Yaquba of the 
' Qisseh ' of Rustom Ma- 
nock 249-52 

Siddi Yaqoub (See Yaqut Khan 
or Yacoub Khan) : governor 
of Dandeh-Rajpur .. ..136 

Sikandar (See Alexander) . . 87 

Sikandar But Shikan : a King 
of Kashmir 47, 56, 57, 59; 
his farmdn inscribed on the 
Jama masjid of Kashmir 60-67 

Sikhs, the 58 

Silvestre de Sacy . . . . 259 

Sinai, Mount . . . . . . 54 

Sind . . . . 66, 261, 262 

Sindibad Nameh ; its Pahlavi 
origin . . . . . . . . 80 

Smhaghad fort 173 

Sira (See Shirin). 

Sirbhawan fort . . . • . . 183 

Sirdeshmukhi 187 

Siva (Shivaji) 240 

Sizire : a mythical place where 

a wise queen ruled . . . . 85 

Socrates — tutor of Alexander . . 84 
Soleiman I . . . . 260, 262 

Soleiman II . . , . 260, 262 

Som Rajah (Sahaji) .. ..230 

Sondabeh ; wife of Kaus . . 80 

Spain ' 91, 109 

*' Spring of Khusru " ; the car- 
pet of Khusru so called 20, 

21, 34-36 
Srinagar — in Kashmir . . . . 98 

Srinagar — in Garhwal . . . . 98 

St. Sofhia Church .. ..24 

St. Thomas, the apostle 4, 12, 

14, 15, 16 
St. Thomas's Mount ; decipher- 
ment of the inscriptions on 
its cross . . . . 1-4 

St. Thomas's Church .. .. 3--, 

Stables of Khusru Parviz 31-32 

Stevens, Fr. ; first Englishman 

to land in India . . 110, 117 

Sthanu Ravi, the Cera King . . 14 
' Story of the Seven Wise Mas- 
ters ' {See Sindibad). 

Strabo 81 

Streyneham Master, Sir : defen- 
der of the English factory 
during Shivaji's second sack 
of Surat 195 ; on the fire- 
temple of Naosari . . 254 
Sukthankar, Dr. . . . . 94 

Surat : factory of the English 
at 110-14, 133-35; its sack 
by Shivaji 127-28, 141, 179- 
203 ; the ' Qisseh ' of Rustom 
Manock on Shivaji's Sack of 
Surat 179-181 ; Surat at the 
time of Shivaji's sack 181, 
183 ; the Parsees of Surat 
182-83; first sack 190-93; 
second sack . . . . 193-96 

Susan Ramashgar . . . . 75 

Suwalli (Swally, Sumari) : land- * 
ing of the first English vessel 
at — under Commander Haw- 
kins 111, 112, 118, 191, 

1^94, 195, 213, 216 

Sykes, SirP '. 43 

Syntipas ; an Eastern work . . 80 
Syria .. .. 22,23,81,109 

Tabari 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29-32, 

34, 36, 39, 40, 43, 44 

Tahmuras, King . . . . . . 124 

Tajar ; a village of Shrinagar . . 73 
Takakhav, Mr. : author of the 
Life of Shivaji .. .. 2O0> 

Takdis : golden throne of Khus- 
ru Parviz . . 26-29, : 



T — concld 

Tamil 7 

Tapti, the . . . . 181, 183 

Taranagam, Toranagrama 95, 96 

*^ Tarapida, King 57 

Tarbang (Trimbak) ; conquer- 
ed by Zafar Khan . . . . 65 
" Tarikh-i Hasan " .. ..69 

Tatta— in Sind 66 

Ta vernier — on Aurangzeb . . 158 
" Temple of the Sun, " the . . 79 

Thana 246 

Theodosius : son of Emperor 
Murice .. ..23, 41, 44 

Thrace 24 

Tibet . . • . . . . 65, 9S- 

Tiflis 25 

Timurids, the . . . . . » 165 
Tod, col. : on the Jaziya 170-71 

Tolstoi, Count 159 

Topas, the ; bom of Portuguese 
fathers and Indian mothers . . 15 

Tomafort 185 

Towel of malleable gold — pos- 
sessed by Khusru Parviz . . 32 

Transoxiana 262 

Trichinopoly . . . . . . 7 

Trivendrum . . . . . . 1 

Trombay 246 

' ' Tsifsung Tsublak Kang " — 
the Jama Mas j id of Shrinagar 58 
. Tarv:"Iount Senai; .. ..54 
"Turks, the 67 


Underi — near Kenneri {q.v.) . . 246 
United East India Company : 
its origin 116-117 ; some do- 
cuments of its times and the 
substance thereof 101-109; 
four documents mentioning 
Rustom Manock and his son 

' Urumiah, Lake . . . . . . 25 

■Usman, Caliph . . . . 53 

*Uzbeks, the 262 

Vardasht : one of the authors 
of Saddar Nasr . . . . 176 

Variav : a village of Surat . . 183 
Vasai (See Bassein). 
Vasco de Gama . . 109, 1 17 

Vatteluttu . . . . . . 3 

Vedanta sects . . . . . . 5 

Venice ; its trade with the 

East 109 

Venkaji Datoo ; leader of Shi- 
vaji's army . . . . . . 201 

Veraple : seat of the apostolic 

vicar of the Malabar Coast . . 15 
Vijril: governor of Goa — Rus- 
tom Manock' s visit to his 
Court 139-40 ; Who is he ? . . 266 
Vimag — a lake of Kashmir . . 46 
Vish-Kanya (See Poison-Damsel) 
Viziapore . . . . 246-47 

Von Hammer, Baron . . . . 258 


Wacha, Ratanji Framji 209, 217 

Waite, Sir N. : first president 
of the New East India Com- 
pany — Contemporary of Rus- 
tom Maneck, the members 
of his council and his quarrels 
with the other Companies 
149-50, 208, 209, 211-16; 
Waite and Norris — their ri- 
valry 220-21; Waite and 
Gayer — their rivalry 220-26 ; 
Waite and Proby — their ri- 
valry 227-28 ; his dismissal 
from office 229-30 ; his letters 
referring to Rustom Maneck 
270 ; an estimate of his cha- 
racter 270 

Wajihu-d-din, Shaikh : his mo- 
nastery at Ahmedabad . . 71 

Weber, Prof. . . . . . . 5 

West, Dr. E. W. : his reading 
and translation of the Pahlavi 
inscriptions on the Crosses of 
Southern India 6, 9-12, 14, 
19 ; his remarks on the Pah- 



W — concld. 

lavi inscriptions in the Kan- 
heri caves 7 ; his remarks 
on the time of the inscription 
on the Crosses . . . . 16 

Yaqub-Khan {i.e., Yaqut 
Khan) : a general title of 
Siddi admirals 243; Siddi 
Yaquba of the ' Qisseh ' same 
as Siddi Qasim (q.v.) 249-52 ; 
governor of Dandeh-Rajpur 
136, 241 ; Rustom Maneck 
received by him at Dandeh 

238, 246 

Yasin : one of the surnames of 
Muhammad . . . . . . 53 

Yasin ibn Batriq : discoverer 
of the pseudo-Aristotalean 
treatise Secretum Secretorum 79 

Yazdagard : last Sassanian King 

34, 125, 151 

Zabul 129 

Zabulestan 262 

Zachariah, patriarch . . . . 43 

Zafarabad : garden in Kashmir 66 

Zafarkhan : governor of Kash- 
mir in Shah Jehan's time 62-66 
Zaina Kadal : fourth bridge on 
the Jhelum . . . . . . 46 

Zain-ul-Abidin : King of Kash- 
mir 58, 59 

Zaingir ; a village of Kashmir 73 
Zal, son of Sam . . . . . . 129 

Zarmanochegas : Indian philoso- 
pher who burnt himself to 
death at Athens . . 81-82 

Zenobia . . . . . . . , 41 

Zimmi, the .. .. 163, 164 

Zoroaster . . . . , . 82' 

Zotenburg ; translator of Ta- 
bari 26, 34 



sjnn * * lOfU 

W' \ ■ .' .K W^:%t< .. •>;• .v^-^l ■■:•! ^ ■^.. .v-^ 



DS Modi, Jivsmji Jamshedji 

3 Asiatic papers