Annual Reports

INTRODUCTION

Asadu’d Dīn in one place (p. 428) and Sadrụ’d Dīn in another (p. 423). The latter form seems to be a copyist’s error, as other contemporary records speak of him as Malik Asad (cf. Tughluq Nāma by Amīr Khusraw, Hyderabad, p. 124). Moreover, it is very likely that the selection of this title for him (Asad meaning ‘a lion’) was deemed apt and appropriate in view of his own name Arsalān, which in the Turkish language possesses the same meaning. Another record (No. 69) of the same monarch is now stored in the Central Museum, Nagpur, Dated 725 A.H. (1324-25 A.D.), it records the construction of a step-well when ‘Malik Janjīn, the unique, held the governorship and Jalālu’d Dīn Aḥsan was the nāib muqti‘. While the name of Malik Janjīn cannot be easily traced in the available historical records, Jalālu’d Dīn Aḥsan seems to be the same who later revolted against Muḥammad Shāh and founded an independent dynasty in Madura in South India. It may be noted that Hiralal (Inscriptions in the C. P. and Berar, Nagpur, 1932, No. 106), while briefly noticing this inscription, mentions the construction of a ‘palace’, but does not mention these amirs.

  Of the five inscriptions (Nos. 17, 66-67, 98, 158) representing the Lodī kings, No. 158 of Sikandar Lodī from Sambhal, Muradabad District, is a new find. Remarkable for its fine execution, it mentions Miyān Dādū, son of Mughulā (?), son of Ikhtiyār Khān, the Chāshnīngīr of the Sultān. The other inscription (No. 66) of the same monarch, now stored in the Archaeological Museum, Gwalior, has been published in Ep. Ind.-Mosl., 1935-36, p. 53. But the reading of the names of the village, viz. Pānwa, the dabīr Jalāl, and the day of the month, viz. 2nd [of Rajab], has been left out there. No. 67 from the same place, dated A.H. 930 (1524 A.D.) in Ibrāhīm Lodī’s reign, mentions Malik Abū’l Fatḥ Muḥammad, son of Kamāl Naufilī entitled Falāḥu’l Mulk, as the builder of a step-well, and Sharafu’l Mulk as the muqti ‘ of the shiq of Chanderi. The text of No. 17 of the same monarch’s reign from the Indian Museum, Calcutta, was published in the Proc. A. S. B., 1872, p. 167, where the name of the Shiqdār was wrongly read as Muḥammad, although the correct form is Miṭha or Miththa.

   Of the Sūrs, the present collection contains only two records (Nos. 68, 133). Of the 39 records of the Mughal emperors, 16 represent Bābur. The texts of some of the records of this king were published in Ep. Ind., Vol. II, etc.; but their readings in most cases require revision. Leaving these, we shall review here three of his newly discovered epigraphs. No. 126 from a well in Fatehpur Sikri, dated A. H. 933 (1526-27 A. D.), though much obliterated, is an important record insomuch as it proves the existence of a structure of Bābur’s reign in that town. It also mentions that the well was constructed when Bādur had returned from his battle with Rānā Sāngā. No. 101, dated A.H. 934 (1527-28 A.D.), is stored in the State Museum, Bharatpur. It mentions Prince Muḥammad Kāmrān Bahādur as the governor of that part. No. 130, dated A.H. 935 (1528-29 A.D.), is from Pilakhna, Aligarh District, and is important insofar as it mentions Ashrafu’l Ashrāf Ghūran, son of Muhammad, son of Islām, one of the Indian amīrs of Bābur, who finds frequent mention in the latter’s memoirs. Badāyūnī in his Muntakhabu’t Tawārīkh (Bid. Ins., Vol. I, pp. 337-38) mentions him as one of the most accomplished men of his age, particularly unrivalled in music.

  The text of Akbar’s inscription (No. 94) from Sonepat in the Panjab as given in Ep. Ind., Vol. II, p. 142, is full of mistakes. The verse indicating the date of the erection of the mosque, which is given in figures also, has been wrongly read and translated as ‘the date of the erection has been entrusted to the command of Qāzī Aḥmad and five others (?)’, which, apart from being meaningless, does not yield the proper date. In fact, this confusion has arisen due to the misreading of the expression ba nām as ba amr. It may be translated as : ‘the date of its erection was found in the name of Qāḍī Aḥmad and five more’, i.e. the date is obtained by adding 5 to the numerical value of the name Qāḍī Aḥmad (964+5=969). Likewise, the date of the inscription (No. 71) of Jahāngīr from the Central Museum, Nagpur, was reported as illegible by Hiralal (op. cit., No. 159). Not only is the date, viz. the 10th regnal year (1615-16 A.D.), clear but the names of the superintendent of the work and the calligraphist, viz. Muḥammad ‘Alī Garg (or Kark) and Khalf Tabrīzī respectively, are also legible despite the damaged nature of the epigraph. The copper-plate grant (No. 87) of Farrukh Siyar’s reign, now deposited in the Madras Museum, is the same as has been noticed in the Catalogue of Copper Plate Grants in Madras Museum, pp. 41-42, where the donor is described on the basis of the Persin text as ‘Śrīnivāsa Dās, the protégé of Tōḍar Mall, and Dewān and Subēdar of His