BOOK V.—An account of Hindústán; religious notions of the
Hindús; Sultáns of Dehlí and other parts of Hindústán, where
at present the khutba is read and coin struck in the name of the
Emperor. An Introduction and nine Chapters.—Introduction.
On the religious notions of the Hindús, history of some of the
Ráís of Hindústán, and the dawn of Muhammadanism in this
country.—Chapter 1. Kings of Dehlí from Shahábu-d dín
Ghorí to Sultán Ibráhím Lodí.—2. Rulers of the Dakhin. In
six Sections.—Section i. The Bahmanís.—ii. The Barídís.—iii.
The 'Imád-Sháhís.—iv. The Nizámu-l Mulkís.—v. The 'Ádil-
BOOK VI.—The Gúrgáníans who ruled in Hindústán from the
time of Zahíru-d dín Muhammad Bábar to the reign of the
Emperor Sháh Jahán. In five Chapters.—Chapter 1. History of
Bábar.—2. Humáyún.—3. Akbar.—4. Jahángír.—5. Sháh-
BOOK VII.—Account of Aurangzeb 'Álamgír. In three Chapters.—Chapter 1. His history from the time of his minority to the period ten years subsequent to his accession.—2. His qualities and character; his descendants; the extent of his empire; his contemporary rulers, in five Sections.—Section i. His character.—ii. His descendants.—iii. The extent of his empire with a detail of the Provinces.—iv. His contemporary rulers.—v. The ancient ministers.—Chapter 3. Contains four Sections.—Section i. An account of the learned men of the author's time.—ii. The celebrated caligraphers.—iii. Some wonderful and marvellous occurrences.—iv. An account of the author's ancestors.
Conclusion.—On the Poets, including the Author.
SIZE—Small folio, comprising 1540 pages, each page containing an average of 20 lines.
It will be seen that both Dr. Dorn and Colonel Dow ascribe the Mir-át-i 'Álam exclusively to Bakhtáwar Khán; but it may be doubted if he had really anything to do with its composition. There is in fact very great confusion attending the authorship of this work, which ought, I believe, to be attributed almost entirely to Muhammad Baká of Saháranpúr, an intimate friend of Bakhtáwar Khán. It may be as well to consider the claims of these two, as well as of others, to the authorship.
I.—BAKHTÁWAR KHÁN. He was a nobleman of Aurangzeb's Court. In the tenth year of the reign he was appointed to the rank of one thousand, and in the thirteenth he was made superintendent of the eunuchs. He was a favourite eunuch of the Emperor, who followed his bier for some paces towards the grave.* The Mir-át-i 'Álam, of which he is the presumed author, and which certainly bears his name, was comprised in a Preface, seven Áráish, two Afzáish, and a Conclusion, and was written in the year 1078 A.H., the date being represented by the words Áína-i bakht, “the mirror of fortune,” which also seems to confirm the title of Bakhtáwar Khán to the authorship of the work. He died in 1095 A.H. (1684 A.D.). The Preface states how fond the author was of historical studies, and how he had long determined upon writing such a work as this. Towards the end of the work, he shows how many works he had written and abridged; amongst others, which are all ascribed by Muhammad Shafí' to Muhammad Baká, we find an abridgment of the Táríkh-i Alfí and the Akhbáru-l Akhyár. There can be no mistake about the person to whom it is meant to ascribe these works in this passage, because the same Chapter mentions the buildings founded by the person alluded to as the compiler, and amongst them are mentioned the villages of Bakhtáwarpúr and Bakhtáwarnagar.
II.—MUHAMMAD BAKÁ. His name does not appear in the Preface to the Mir-át-i 'Álam, but in the biography of him, written by Muhammad Shafí', it is distinctly stated that he wrote the work at the request, and in the name, of his intimate friend Bakhtáwar Khán, but left it incomplete.
III.—MUHAMMAD SHAFÍ'. He was the son of the sister of Muhammad Baká, and he tells us in the Preface to the Mir-át-i Jahán-numá that Muhammad Baká had left several sheets of an historical work incomplete, ill-arranged, and requiring revision, and that he was thinking of putting them into shape and rendering them fit for publication, when he was warned in a dream that it was a sacred duty he should fulfil towards his uncle's memory, that he readily obeyed this injunction, and after supplying what was defective in the work, especially on the subject of the Prophets, completed his labours in 1095 A.H., the year of Bakhtáwar Khán's death; but after it, because he speaks of him under a title used only after death, and called his work Mir-át-i Jahán-numá. This is the history of which the detailed contents are given above. The loose sheets he alludes to are evidently the Mir-át-i 'Álam, though he does not expressly say so, even when he mentions that work as one of those composed by Muhammad Baká; nevertheless, as the very words of the Mir-át-i 'Álam and the Mir-át-i Jahán-numá are identical in the chapters which relate to the same subjects, there can be no doubt that “the loose sheets” and the Mir-át-í 'Álam are also the same; but why the credit of the Mir-át-i 'Álam should be so depreciated it is not easy to say, except it was done for the purpose of enhancing the merit of the nephew's labours.
IV.—MUHAMMAD RIZÁ. He was younger brother of Muhammad Baká. His concern in the work is very incomprehensible, unless on the understanding that, according to the usual Indian foible, he had a quarrel with his nephew; for he also edited the Jahán-numá from “the loose leaves” left by Muhammad Baká, without any allusion to the labours of his nephew. The precise date of his compilation is not mentioned, but that he succeeded Muhammad Shafí' in the work, and must have been aware of what he had done, is evident; for at the close of the work, where he gives an account of his ancestors and relations, he mentions the death of Fathu-lla in 1100 A.H., a date five years subsequent to that in which Muhammad Shafí' had stated that Fathu-lla was still living. Muhammad Rizá does not say he had the sanction of a dream for his undertaking, but that he had long wished to arrange the dispersed sheets of his brother's history, and had only waited for the time appointed by destiny to do so, which at last, notwithstanding the avocations of his official duties, made its appearance, and the result is the Mir-át-i Jahán-numá, a name which he gave to the work, in consequence of the implied wishes of his brother to that effect; but as the imperfect work written in his brother's lifetime was called Mir-át-i 'Álam, it does not appear why the name was changed into Mir-át-i Jahán-numá, a title chosen with some reason by his nephew, because it represents the chronogram of 1095 A.H. The author says his additions comprise an account of the Prophets from Núh to Muhammad, of the Philosophers, of the Imáms, of the Khalífs, of the Saints of Persia, Arabia and Hindústán, and of the Poets. He says he will mention more about his own additions in the Conclusion; but the two copies which I have consulted, one in the Motí Mahal Library at Lucknow, and the other in the possession of Khádim Husain Sadru-s Sudúr of Cawnpore, are deficient at the end. He designates the history which Muhammad Baká wrote at the request of Bakhtáwar Khán, as Táríkh-i 'Álamgírí, and not Mir-át-i 'Álam; but it is evident that in this case also the “dispersed leaves” are those included in the Mir-át-i 'Álam. He divides his Mir-át-i Jahán-numá into a Preface, eleven Áráish, and a Conclusion, and has subdivided the work in other respects a little more minutely than his predecessor. For instance, he has devoted fourteen namáish to an account of the wazírs, which by his predecessor is included in one, and he has adopted some other minute differences, in order to give an air of originality to his work, and give him a title to independent authorship; but the two works called Mir-át-i Jahán-numá may be?? considered in all material respects the same. Neither of the editors has added anything to the history of Aurangzeb's reign by Muhammad Baká, though he carries it down only to 1078 A.H.