1878.] 
W. Irvine —The Bangash Nawabs of Farrukhabad. 
379 
Kaim Khan and Mahmud Khan Bakhshi now determined to march. 
They had fifty thousand horse and foot paid direct by the State, besides 
the contingents of two hundred brothers, dependents and chiefs of the 
Bangash clan, all provided with elephants, and each vieing with the other in 
the completeness of his preparations. These served at their own expense. 
There were further the contingents of the Bajahs already mentioned. 
Nawab Ahmad Khan, too, who on account of differences with his elder 
brother caused by Mahmud Khan Bukhshi, had lived for two years at Delhi, 
hearing of the intended campaign, took leave of the Emperor on some pre¬ 
text, and by rapid marches joined his brother’s army. There were two hun¬ 
dred large cannon, besides swivel guns, and chadar , and camel-guns attached 
to the howdahs of the elephants, as used by Europeans,* with abundance of 
lead and powder. 
The army marched on the 2nd Zi’l Hajj 1161,f (12th Nov. 1748), and 
by stages reached the Ganges at Kadirganj, about forty-three miles north¬ 
west of Farrukhabad, where it crossed by a bridge of boats into the Budaon 
district. Shamsher Khan and Khan Bahadur were sent on in advance, and 
cutting a way quickly past Auseth and other villages, they prepared the 
Nawab’s encampment at the edge of the water. Daily skirmishing parties, 
armed with bows and arrows or muskets, were sent out from the Nawab’s 
army. Meanwhile the angel of death had visited the camp of Kaim Khan, 
fear and destruction never left it, all whether old or young were depressed 
and agitated. The whole of the night of the 11th Zi’l Hajj (21st November 
1748) they wore out on their prayer-carpets interceding for a favourable 
answer to their prayers. 
On the other side the Rohelas, having given up all hope of escape, had 
begun to form an entrenchment round their camp, close to the village of 
* Or u under charge of a European,” MatcCna-i-farangi. 
f There seems some conflict as to the correct year of Kaim Khan’s death. In the 
MS. of Hisam-ud-din, the 3rd year (1163-4 H.) has been written first, then crossed 
out, and the figure 1 substituted. His poetical tarfkhs yield 1161, 1162, and 1163, H. 
The only other contemporary authority I know for 1162 H. is the Tabsirat-im-Ndzi - 
rin , from which probably the author of the Miftdh , p. 497, copied that year. The 
Fatehgarh Nama , a modem work has the same year. On the other hand, the Khizdna 
* Amir ah, the Siyar ’ ul-Mutd kharin and the TdHJch-i-MuzaJfari all agree in naming 
Ahmad Shah’s first year (1161 H.) The Life of Hafiz Rahmat Khan, Wali-ullah, 
the Lauh-i-Tarilch, and Dow, all follow the above and fix the year 1161 H. The 
Ma’asir-ul- JJmra , without naming the year, leads one to infer that it was 1161 H., while 
the Akhbar-i-Muhabbat in one place has 1161 H. and in another 1163 H. The year 
1163 H. cannot be admitted, as then the date of Naval Rae’s death, which is not dis¬ 
puted, would fall before instead of after Kaim Khan’s death. I would decide in favour 
of 1161 H. as having the most evidence in its favour. The date I make out to be the 
12th Zi’l Hajj, though some books give the 10th, and some the loth of that month. 
2 c 
