

bags 



magnitude of the figures, an unreal impression of the Inip e 



rial 



* An in' am of one crore of Dams was given to the KhSn-i-KhSnan 

 Mir Jumla in 1072 a.h. for his conquest of Assam (Ma.&sir-i-'Ala*^: 

 p. 40: Khafi Khan, II, pp. 154-5). One crore Darns were also preserve 

 to the Wazir Ja'afar Khan in 1080 a.h. (Ma,asir, 90). The Prince Ma^r 

 mad Mu'azzam had a gift of three crores in 1083 a.h. {Ibid. 123). Om 

 examples of donations, varying from five lacs of dams to two crores, » 



S2 nd r£ n ? P \ 142 ' 149 > 150 ' 236 > 2 ? 4 > 282, 365, 441, 470, 474, 481 f «g 

 506, 516 of the same work. Earlier instances of the rei^n of J ah *7* . 

 occur in the Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, Tr. Rogers and Beveridge I 46 (one lag- 

 I. 72 (twenty lacs); I. 75 (thiry lacs); I. 133 (five lacs). Kh58 K&* 

 records three cases in the reign of Shah Jahan : I. 581 (two crores), • 

 601 (two crores), and I. 755 (Bve crores) to Dara Shikoh. 





94 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal [N.S., XI1L 



epithet ought not to be permitted to obscure the real point at 

 issue. That point is simply this, was there a tanka called, for 

 some reason unknown, Muradi, and was it equivalent to the 

 twentieth part of a rupee as the dam was equal to the fortieth ? 

 That question, I venture to state, admits now of but one answer, 

 and that is in the affirmative, and should be enough for our 



purpose. 



Another question, ■ Was the Tanka-i-Muradi a mere money 



of account ? ' is perhaps more difficult to answer, and I am 

 afraid that it is impossible for any one conversant with the 

 evidence at present available, to say with any confidence 

 that it was not. I have urged such considerations as have 

 suggested themselves in favour of the opposite view, but 

 I am by no means oblivious of the difficulties in the way. 

 Nizamu-d-din as well as Badaoni speak of so many as one crore 

 of these Muradi tanka s having been given as a present to Mirza 

 Rustam. It is not at all easy to understand why the Emperor 

 should not have given him five lakhs of rupees or about fifty 

 thousand muhrs, which would have been identical in value, ana 

 at the same time more convenient, probably to him who paid' 

 and certainly to him who received them. It is true that Abin 

 Fazl a3 well as Bernier speak of the custom of keeping 

 of 1,000 dams at hand for distribution," but a crore of tankas 

 would have required ten thousand bags to contain and about 

 eight hundred carts to carry them. This is of course unthink- 

 able, and we are naturally inclined to suppose that the Murad 

 tanka could not have been anything else than an accountant s 

 fiction, and that there was no coin corresponding to it in 

 reality. I fear, however, that this is pressing the conclusion 

 too far. The Mughal historians frequently assert that this or 

 that Emperor presented one crore, two orores or three crores 

 of dams to this or that prince or noble. Several instances can 

 be quoted from the Tuzuk-i-Jdhangiri and the Ma,asir^Ah^' 

 giri. 1 Are we therefore to infer that the dam also was a mere 

 ' 'money of account/' and that it was only an imaginary unit 

 invented by some financier for the convenience of his subor- 

 dinates, and retained for the purpose of producing, by ** 



