84 Ahdu.\ W'dli— Plague in India. [June, 



Pla;^ue. The middle cla,ss as well as the masses died in large numbers. 

 Theii- number was estimated to be about 100,000 (one lak). The 

 eyes, tongue and ears of those whose liead or brain was affected, be- 

 came useless. Ghaziu-d-Din Khan Bahadur Fhuz Jang also had an attack 

 of the Plague. Tiiough ho recovered, he lost his eyesight,* It is useless to 

 speak of the public. In fact no old men, nor any of the chroniclers 

 can ever give an instance of such a terrihle outbreak of the pestilence, 

 or sucli a heavy mortality and the commotion caused thereby. Tho 

 Plague lasted for two months. Its fury stopped after a week. 

 It is curious that the tarikh (date) of this outbreak was — ■ 



" Was it the Day of Judgment, or the commotion caused by the 

 pestilence. "t 



His Majesty relying on God and maintaining the presence of his 

 mind and his indomitable will, was a looker-on of the doings of the 

 destiny. He left Bijapur in Rabi'u-1-awwal, and proceeded on to invade 

 the territory of the Marhatta Sambha, who was taken prisoner imme- 

 diately. 



From the above facts, we may conclude — 



1. That the Plague now invading India for the first time, during 

 the sovereignty of the Britisli, is not a new visitor to India. It broke 

 out in the reigns of the Mughal Emperors Jahangir and Aurangzeb and 

 probably in other periods especially during the rule of the later 

 Mughal s.j: 



2. That the present epidemic of Plague is undoubtedly more 

 severe and widespread in the Bombay Presidency than in other parts of 



* Vide Ma'asirn-1-Umara (Bib. Ind. Ed. Yol. II, p. 875). 



f The Misra' Qiydmut hild ya shilr-i-ivahd hUd gives 1101 A.H. instead of 

 llOO A.H. The Ma'asiru-l-Umarfi (Vol. Ill, pp. 32-33), says that Fazil Khnn 

 Shaikh Makhdum Sadr died of the pestilence tliat had broken out in the Lashkar 

 (army) of 'Alamgir in the 32nd year of His Majesty's reign, corresponding -with 

 1099 A.H. It appears that the anthor while correctly quoting the regnal year, 

 was misled from the heading of the Chapter in the Ma'Jisir-i-'AlamgliM, which gives 

 both the regnal and Hijri years. But the regnal year did not end till Ramazan, 

 while the Hijri year ended in Zul-Hijja, hence the discrejoancy. Again, 'Alamgir 

 reached Bijapur on the 22nd Jumada I. 1099 A.H. He celebrated his next JuMs in 

 Shawwal, and did not leave the city till Rabi' I. A.H. 1100. The Plague broke out 

 while the Emperor was in the city, in the middle of Muharram. So the year 

 cannot but be 1100 A.H. or 1688 A.D. 



X It is stated that Ahmad Shah Durrani had to leave Hindustan on account 

 of the pestilence (Wahd) that broke out in his army (Zas?i/<ar) in the neightbour- 

 liood of Akbarabad (Agra) in or about 1173 A.H. Was this the Plague? 1 have 

 no material at present to prosecute an enquiry on the subject {vide M. Umara 11^ 

 720 and III, 892). But Ta'un and Waba very often mean the same disease. 



