1879. ] W. Irvine—The Bangash Nawitbs of Furrukhabad. 129 
Kamr-ud-din Khan ’Itimad-ud-daula. ’Imad-ul-Mulk’s career from 1752 to 
1760* is sufficiently well known. From the date, however, when he ceased 
to play a prominent part, we are told nothing more of him than that he took 
refuge in one of Suraj Mall’s fortresses. In-one work we are told that he was 
found by Colonel Goddard at Surat in 1790 ;f and that, by order of the: 
Supreme Government, he was sent off to Mecca, whence he never returned. 
How far this statement is correct will presently be shewn. The Xhizana 
*Amira, which was written in 1762-1763, naturally concludes ’Imad-ul- 
Mulk’s story by leaving him hiding in the Bhartpur country. But there 
ean be no doubt that his family and friends were sent to Farrukhabad, and 
that from at least the year 1762 he himself lived there constantly. The 
- quarter of the city where he lived, near the Kadiri gate, is still known as 
the Chaoni or encampment of Ghazi-ud-din Khan. The income of Parga- 
nah Bilhor, said to amount to Rs. 12,000:a month, was allotted to him by 
Ahmad Khan during bis stay in Farrukhabad. 
In 1771, when Ahmad Khan died, and the Emperor Shah ’Alam was 
approaching Farrukhabad, Ghazi-ud-din Khan, fearing vengeance for the 
murder of Alamgir II, the Emperor’s father, thought it advisable to quit 
that city. He left his relations and servants there and started with a few 
faithful retainers. We do not know how the interval was passed, but the 
Mo'asir-ul-Umra says, that in 1187 H. (March 1773—March 1774), he ap- 
peared in Malwa, where the Mahrattas gave him several mahals for his 
support. We learn from the Zirikh-i-Muzaffari that he was found by 
Colonel Goddard at Surat in February 1780. Thence he was despatched 
on a pilgrimage to Mecca. Returning by Basrah, he travelled to Kabul 
and Kandahar, where he visited the ruler, Taimur Shah, son of Ahmad 
Shah Durrani. At that time the prince Ahsan Bakht, son of the 
Emperor Shah ’Alam, who, after the blinding of his father by Ghulam 
Kadir Khan (June 1788), had escaped from Delhi, andhad wandered homeless 
through Rajputana, past Jainagar, Bikaner, and Multan, arrived at 
Taimur Shah’s court. Out of regard for him as a descendant of the great 
Taimur, as a relation of Shah ’Alam, and as a guest, to whom the rights of 
hospitality were due, the king treated him withconsideration. He sent some of 
_ his own troops to accompany the prince and ’Imad-ul-Mulk towards Multan, 
promising to march soon in person for the conquest of Hindustan. Shortly 
after this the king died{ and was succeeded by his son, Zaman Shah, who 
* Elphinstone, 651—659. 
t+ A mistake for 1780. See Wilson’s Mill, VI, 37 note, from which the statemont 
is taken. ; 
{ Taimur Shah died on the 7th Shuwwal 1207 H. 18th August 1793. (Tarikh-i- 
Ahmad of’ Abd-ul-Karim.) 
R 
