1895.] A. S. Beveridge— Khwdjah Muhammad Muqim. 1G7 
a khdnazad , and as bearing the names Muhammad Muqim and the title 
Khwdjah. This is the father of Nizam,—Khwajah Mu. Muqim 
Harawi. 1 2 3 * * 
The various Muqims of this time are as follows :— 
1. Shuja/at Khan, Muqim-i-‘Arab. A Turkistani, and died in 988 H. 
2. Muqim Khan, son of Shuja £ at Khan. A Turkistani and, early under Akbar, 
a Commander of 500. 
3. Mirza Mu. Muqim, the son of Mirza Zulniin, and by marriage a cousin of 
the Emperor Babar. 
4. Muqim Naqshbandi. Defeated and slain in Gujrat, in 983 H. 
5. Muqim a “ Commander of Five Hundred, 100 horse ; ”—a relation of Asaf 
Kh an III. Ja £ far Beg Qazwini (413', (Pudi shahndmah. I, part 2, 328). 
The word which Mr. Blochmann renders ££ relation ” is khwesh. I can 
find nothing to decide whether Muqim was a blood-relation and therefore 
perhaps a Qazwini, or a son-in-law of Ja £ far Beg. So that on the ground 
of descent there is, so far, nothing to prevent him from being No. 401. 
He is called Shahjahani in Mr. Blochmann’s index. If this implies that 
his best days were lived under Shahjahan, it makes, to some slight extent, 
against his being the bakhshi of 9S9 H., the said baJchshj being an old 
servant in 999 H. and the year of Shahjahan’s accession being 1037 H. 
Very little, however, can be built on the consideration that No. 401 
would have been an old man in 1037 H., for some of the amirs of these 
days rivalled modern statesmen in their sustained capacity for holding 
office. Perhaps some student of the sources for Shahjahan’s reign could 
tell something about this Muqim. 
6. Khwajah Muhammad Muqim Harawi (420, 421). A Khurasani, a servant 
of Babar, Humayun and Akbar;—and possibly a khanazad* —at any rate 
young in the service of Babar. 
7. Khwajah Muhammad Muqim, the son of Miraki (525, No. 401). A Khurasani, 
an old servant of the State in 999 H.—and a Mianazad. He was a Com¬ 
mander of Two Hundred. 
(b) To entitle Muqim Bakhshi to be called an old servant of tba 
State in 999 H., he must have been a contemporary of Harawi for, at 
the least, the greater part of the 36 years of Akbar’s reign antecedent 
to his appointment. If my suggestion that the Harawi of the earlier 
chronicling is the Muqim Bakhshi of later record, be wrong, some 
curious coincidences must be faced. Both these men (supposing they 
were two), were Khurasanis ;—Muqim Bakhshi was a khdnazad, Harawi 
was a dependent of Babar (Elliot V, 178) if not literally a khdnazad ;— 
both bore the names Muhammad Muqim and the title Khwdjah . 8 
1 Harat was until recently, the capital of Khurasan. (Gazetteer of India.) 
2 The grounds for this are briefly indicated later on, in these notes (para. (/).) 
3 Mir Ma‘sum of Bhakkar calls Muqim Bakhshi indifferently Khwajah and Khan, 
but I cannot find that the latter rank was ever bestowed on him. He seems to 
have ended his career as a leader of Two Hundred. 
