108 A. S. Beveridge — Khwtijah Muhammad Muqlm. [No. 2, 
Their records do not overlap and they never appear on the scene to¬ 
gether. Harawl vanishes from the record in 981 H., Mirakl appears 
in 988 H. Moreover—and this is certainly a consideration of much 
weight — both men filled similar or identical offices. Harawl was a 
dlwdn , a vazir, an amln : the son of Mirakl an amln, a wdqi‘ah 
nawls , a bakhshi and a dhvdn. That there should have been two 
contemporaries, so alike in circumstance and whose character and 
rank fitted them to fill the same class of appointments would certaiuly 
be singular. 
(c) Two questions present themselves which contribute something 
in favour of my suggestion. The record of .the “ old servant,” Muqlm 
Baldishi begins in 998 H. Wliat was his past ? 
The most important office named as filled by Harawl under Akbar 
was that of amln in Sindh, in 981 H. What were the “ high offices ” 
which the Maasir tells us, he held under Akbar? (Elliot V, 178. 
Madsir under Muqlm’s name.) 
(d) I have emphasized the fact that the two men bore the same 
names and title and it should now be noticed that more weight might 
be due to the conjunction of “ Muhammad ” with “ Muqlm,” if any 
other Muqlm of this time could be found bearing any other second 
name than Muhammad! ‘Abu-1-fazl names them all, short,—Muqlm; — 
Jahangir does the same ; so too Babar. Nizam 1 2 gives the Muhammad 
to three — those to whom I have given it. 
(e) It is a slight contribution in favour of my suggestion, perhaps, 
that the index to the Akbarndmah (Bib. Ind.) places all the incidents 
which concern both Harawl and the “ son of Mlraki,” under the heading, 
“ Muqlm Bakhshi.'" The maker of the index must have possessed some 
guiding clue for this arrangement, as well as for the omission under this 
heading, of scattered incidents which concern other Muqlms. 
(/) A lengthened search has yielded no information about the 
Mirakl who is set down as the father of Muqlm Bakhshi (525 ). 3 
Possibly the word Mirakl may not be a name, but may imply that 
Muqlm’s father held a petty office. If so, this would give fuller mean¬ 
ing to the epithet “ khanazad” applied to the Bakhshi by Nizam 
and might indicate that like Nizam (who speaks of himself as a 
khanazad) the “ son of Mlraki ” was bom in the royal service. This 
would — granting the correctness of my suggestion,— explain how 
it was that Harawl entered Babar’s service so young and was called a 
“ dependent.” 
1 The passages in which he names his father in fall are to be found in the 
Tabaqat (Lakhnau ed. preface, and at page 374). 
2 The results of this search are published above, pp. 163 & £f. 
