Oh, for sweet content, Oh, Oh!
It has closed to pride the path of both worlds!

One of the occurrences was the death of Khwāja Shāh Manṣūr the Diwan. Alexander Zu-al-qarnīn was accustomed to say to his special intimates, “Boon companions and jesters are of one class. Their business is nothing but to promote mirth by means of witti­cisms and wonderful stories, without regard to their truth. They replenish with oil the lamp of enjoyment, and by effective hits enhance pleasure, and trick out the bride of delight in every limb (ba har haft, lit. with all seven. See Vullers II, 1458^b). The class of the pillars of the court, who are, as it were, the hand and arms, is different. All their business is to arrange for ministering to the dissensions of the world, and curing the aged, old, and stricken ones of the Age. They utter things which may heal the distractions of the time and may compose what is confused and so tranquillize the world. They make joy allied with security, an if purchasers be not at hand, they meditate remedies in silence and right thinking. Every evil which occurs to the palace of dominion is chiefly occasioned by those two classes leaving their proper work.” He also continually said to his officers, “Whoever, with the idea of flattering us, leaves the highway of truth, and lets drop the reins of right consideration, and promotes our prosperity by harsh dealings with the soldiers and subjects, and who seeks by improper means, and incorrect statements, to increase the treasures of dominion will assuredly cause the stewards of destiny to turn our hearts from him, and will receive condign punishment.” The case of the Khwāja is a fresh instance of this. From love of office and cupidity he was always laying hold of trifles in financial matters, and dis­playing harshness. Sympathy with debtors (?) never touched the hem of his heart. His whole idea was to fill his own house. He advanced his business by fair speeches while behaving badly. All at once he fell into an evil state and sank into the pit of annihila­tion. He did not know that wrong-doing is not permanent, and that a lamp is not brightened by the application of water. Before this, some pārwānas (orders) in the handwriting of M. Ḥakīm's munshī were found among the effects of Shādmān, who had been killed. Kuar Mān Singh sent these to court. One of them was addressed to the Khwāja, and its purport was that petitions of unanimity and well-wishing were increasing the estimation (of the Mīrzā for the Khwāja). Shortly proceedings would be taken to recognize them. The tolerant sovereign regarded those papers as the work of forgers, and did not show them to the Khwāja. In the neighbourhood of Sonpat, Malik ānī,¹* an old servant of the Mīrzā, came to court with his family, and it was reported that they (i.e. the Mīrzā) had sent him in order that he might make a pretence of indignation, and act as a spy,* and also win over the hearts of the simple, and increase the activity of the wicked. From foresight and caution—which constitute the strength of the arm of power, and give might to the hand of fortune—he (Khwāja Manṣūr) was suspended. On that day many one-sided expressions of the Khwāja came to light, and the dust of uneasiness rose high. Fortune aided in stirring up strife, and the times were critical. He was called into the privy chamber, and the letter was read to him. As his star was sinking, his answers increased the suspicions against him. He was not allowed* to communicate with others, and circumspection was exercised. On the 19th (Isfāndarmaẕ) Malik 'Ali the chief-constable of the camp (kotwāl-i-urdū) produced several letters, and these increased the suspicions against the Khwāja. From these letters it appeared that the soldiers (sipāh) of the Khwāja who belonged to Fīrūzpūr—which was the Khwāja's fief—had opened nego­tiations with the Mīrzā (Ḥakīm) and would soon join him. At this news the wrath of the sovereign blazed forth, and an order was given that if the Khwāja would engage to produce the man (the writer) and give proper security for this, he should remain, as before, in prison. Otherwise, he was to be put to death in order that the short-sighted and covetous might be punished, and that a lesson might be given to the wicked and those of crooked mind. He in reply uttered injudicious words, and could not furnish security. Out of kindness H.M. ordered that if Khwāja Sulaimān,* who was related to him by marriage and had a brotherly friendship for him, would engage for him, his security should be accepted. That cowardly one was struck with terror, and turned round, and from fear of his own life went aside. Inasmuch as the time was confused owing to the presence of envious people, and the season was critical, and the grandees were plotting against his life, of necessity an order was passed for capitally punishing him. The servants* were bound by an order and hung him on a tree near the serai of Kot Kacwāha. From want of understanding and narrow-mindedness (abiy'at dostī), Turk and Tājīk (i.e. all classes) were pleased, and there was great rejoicing in the camp. It generally happens that envious and art­ful persons who are self-interested act in this way, and that there is retribution for selfishness and for evil-mindedness towards the weak.

Be not severe in the world's work,
For every oppressor has a severe death (?).
Beware, and have pity on the weak,
Be afraid of the severity of fortune.

He was contentious, or had not the art of living. He ruined the houses of men in order to improve his own. For his own advantage he destroyed a number of poor people. He did not read the signs of the times, and did not distinguish between the season of conciliation and that of strictness. But there is seldom found such an acute accountant and one so laborious, so discriminating, and so plausible of speech. If he had had a little piety to God, a little ³⁴⁴ loyalty to the lord of the universe, some kindness to the people, and a little absence of cupidity and injuriousness, he never would have come to this end from the wrath of the Shahinshāh, nor have been caught in this illustration of the Divine anger. The appreciative monarch often uttered with his pearling tongue, “From that day the market of accounts was flat and the thread of accounting dropped from the hand.” He assigned the office of Vizier to Qulīj K., and gave orders that Zain K. Kokaltāsh and Ḥakīm Abū-l fatḥ should also be present in the Vizier's office, and should superintend matters.

In Faiẓī's poems B.M. MS. Add. 25981, p. 282b, and also on p. 287 of another B.M. MS. of the same author there is an epigram which describes the joy of the public at being delivered from Manūr's tyranny.

The story of Shāh Manūr is a very sad one, and throws a lurid light on the morals of Akbar's officers. A.F.'s account is, as usual, obscure, and has to be explained by the T.A., the Iqbālnāma, Badayūnī, Lowe 300, and the Maair. al-Umarā I. 653. See also Noer's Akbar, Mrs. Beveridge's translation, II. 52. We learn from the T.A., Elliot V. 422, and from A.F., that Mān Singh sent to Akbar some letters that he had found in Shādmān's portfolio. Shādmān was defeated and killed near the Indus on 12 Dai (about 22 December 1580) and Akbar got the news before leaving Fatḥpūr. Presumably Mān Singh sent the letters he had found in Shādman's portfolio along with the news of the victory. The T.A. tells us there were three of them, viz. one from M. Muḥammad Ḥakīm to Ḥakīm-al-mulk, one to Muḥammad Qāsim Mir Baḥr, and one to Khwāja Manṣūr. They purported to be replies by Ḥakīm M. to friendly letters received from these three persons. We are told by A.F., p. 342, that Akbar considered these letters to be forgeries, and did not show them to Man­ṣūr. They either were forgeries, or very stale documents, for one of them was addressed to Ḥakīm-al-mulk who had gone off to Mecca in August 1580 (see A.N. 317). Possibly, however, the person meant is Ḥakīm Ain-al-mulk the faujdār of Sambal. See text III. 348. From Fatḥpūr Akbar moved out to Bād Serai 15 kos off, and there he heard of Shahbāz's victory near the city of Ajodya (Elliot V. 422). He continued his march and reached Delhi on 10 Isfandārmaẕ (about 20 February 1581). Two days later he was at Sonpat, 28 m. N.W. Delhi, and here it was that Malik ānī formerly in the service of M. Ḥakīm, arrived, and as the T.A. informs us, put up at the quarters of Manṣūr (Sonpat is the place mentioned by A.F. The T.A. says Panipat, which is a station some 25 m. further on). Here Akbar, whose former suspicions had been increased by Malik ānī's arrival, showed Manṣūr the papers that had been found in Shādmān's portfolio. On 17 Isfandarmaẕ (about 27 February) Akbar reached Thānesar and had the interview with Jalāl S. From there he went on to Shahabad in the Ambāla district, and here it was that the kotwāl of the camp, Malik* 'Alī, produced on 19 Isfandarmaẕ the letters which he said had been obtained in Sirhind from a courier of Sharaf Beg who was Khwāja Manṣūr's agent and in charge of his estate at Fīrūzpūr. These letters sealed Manṣūr's fate and led to his being hanged at Koṭ Kacwāha, which according to Blochmann 431, n. 2, is a village on the road from Karnāl to Ludhiāna. Presumably it is near Shāhābād. The Khulāṣat Tawārīkh states that it was between Shāhābād and Patīāla. The same authority denies that Todar Mal had any hand in the intrigues against the Khwāja. It adds that Akbar found out his mistake ten days afterwards. We are told by Niāmu-d-dīn, Elliot V. 426, that the letters on which Manṣūr was hanged were forged by Shahbāz K.'s brother Karam Ullah. According to the Maair I. 157, Karam Ullah was the tool of Todar Mal. The Maair gives the chronogram of Manṣūr's death ānī Manṣūr Ḥallāj, “A second Manṣūr Ḥallāj,” alluding to the martyrdom of this Sūfī in A.D. 922. The B.M. MS. Add. 27, 247, Rieu's Cat. I. 247, contains some remarkable variations from the Bib. Ind. text and from most MSS., in its account of Shāh Manṣūr's death. It is evidently a different recension. One valuable thing is that in several places it gives the corresponding Hijra date instead of only the Divine era dates as in the Bib. Ind. text. Thus at p. 343 it tells us that 19 Isfandarmaẕ, which it calls the Farwardīn day, corresponds to 23 Muḥarram. Consequently it was 28 February 1581. Then it adds that the letters were obtained by Malik 'Alī from the enemy's camp. It also states that two days before—viz. 17 Isfandar­maẕ, Sunday, 21 Muḥarram—Pāk Dās was made dīwān. It also says that Akbar did not want to put Manṣūr to death, but was induced to do so by Rajah Bīrbar and others, and it adds that Manṣūr was hanged on a Kaikar, i.e. bābul or acacia tree. The explanation of his death too is differently worded. A.F. in this MS. admits more clearly than in text that Manṣūr was wrongly convicted and suggests that he must have committed sins on former occasions (in a pre­vious life?).