



Vol. a aT 10.) The Later Mughals. 521 
to headquarters that Nizém-ul-mulk was enlisting men 
lecting matériel of war in excess of his requirements as a pro- 
vincial governor. 
On receipt of these 25. ani Husain ‘Ali Khan sent for the 
agent who represented Nizam-ul-mulk at court, and, after abus- 
ing him and his grind told ors to report to his employer what 
had been said to him; the grievances op at being the above- 
mentioned matter of Marahmat Khan, the removal of a zamin- 
Husain ‘Ali Khan. After complaining of the enmity of the 
official — vt points out that people who had never wee in 
Malwah, could not know its condition; but Husain ‘Ali 
having lately alia through it mus t know the facts well. The 
Mahrattahs, with over fifty thousand joe were harrying it ; 
if troops in large numbers were not entertained, what hope was 
there of defending the country from their ravages P_ For this rea- 
sou he had added to his resources in men and matériel. He also 
objected to giving up Malwah just as the instalments of the Rabi 
cused him of intending adverse action. If that had been his 
wish he could have gratified it when at Agrah, where several 
times messengers came to him from Nikisiyar. He had no such 
a 
chosen, only incensed Husain ‘Ali Khan still more against him.* 
arman was now issued to N Saag recalling him 
from Malwah, on the plea that it was necessary for the protection 
of the Dakhin that Husain ‘Ali Khan should take Ze ti of re 
i was 0 
provinces of Akbara@bad, Allahabad, Multan, or Burb&npur. 
This was a distinct aaa of faith, — no donbt te 
Nizam-ul-mul = in the a ee he was to be destroyed. 
had already some reason for apprehension, pies to the sevGSieiits 
of Husain Al Thar’ bokbet, - Dilawar ar Khan, who was 
hovering on the western border of Malwah, attended by Rajah 
Bhim Singh of Bondi, “Rajah Gaj Singh of Narwar, and other 

his father’s death, he was brought asa child to India and made over to his 
elder brother, Yilbaras Khan. The Térikh-i-Muhammadi states that t 
f Khan died at Mandi on the 19th Rajab 1136 H. (12th April 
1724). If so, the man who t t in with Nizam-ul-molk, 
died there in 156 H. i - om a H. ape is > son and 
not the same individual. uw, I, 834, and Mirat-us-safé, B i 6540, 
Probably a misprint for Talam, sarkar Sarangpur, 4,in IT, 203 
& Khafi Khan, II, 851 ; Tarikh-i-Muzafari, p. 174. 
