164 
W. Irvine — The Later Mu a hats (1707-1803). 
[No. 2, 
destroyed by an epidemic which raged in the army under his command. 
In spite of this privation, his active career continued as before ; such a 
case having been until then unknown in India, of a blind man continu¬ 
ing to command an army in the field or govern a province. 
Mir Qamaru-d-dm, son of Ghaziu-d-din Khan by the daughter of 
Shahjahan’s Wazir, Sa‘d-nllah Khan, was born on the 14th Rabi‘ II. 
1082 H., (11th August, 1671). 1 In 1095 H. (1682-3) when in his thirteenth 
year, he received as his first appointment in the service of the state, 
the rank of 400 zat, 100 horse. In the following year the title of Khan 
was added to his name. In 1101 or 1102H., (1690-1), he received the 
title of Cin Qilic Khan, and at ‘Alamgir’s death in 1118 H., 1707, he 
was governor of Bijapur. His father and he took no part in the contest 
for the throne between the sons of ‘Alamgir : and when Bahadur Shah 
had succeeded in defeating his rival, he removed the Turanis from the 
Dakhin, possibly on the advice of Zii-l-fiqar Khan, who looked on them as 
his personal enemies. Ghaziu-d-din Khan. Firuz Jang, was sent to Ahma- 
dabad in Gujarat, Muhammad Amin Khan, Cin, went to Muradabad a3 
faujdar and Cin Qilic Khan was appointed Subahdar of Audh and faujdar 
of Gorakhpur (15th Ramazan, 1119 H., 9th December, 1707). At the same 
time the title of the last named was changed to that of Khan Dauran, 
Bahadur, and he was raised to 6000 zat , 6000 horse. A few weeks after¬ 
wards (5th Zu-1-Qa c dah, 27th January, 1708), he resigned all his titles 
and appointments ; but at the desire of Mun‘im Khan, the Wazir, he 
withdrew his resignation and w r as promoted to 7,000 zat , 7,000 horse. 
When his father died and the deceased’s property was confiscated, Cin 
Qilic Khan (Khan Dauran as he then was) sent in his resignation 
afresh, 18tli Zu-l-Hijjah 1122 H., 6th February, 1711 ; this time it was 
accepted, and 4,000 rupees a year were granted for his support. Quite 
at the end of Bahadur Shah’s reign, he returned to the active list with 
the titles of Ghaziu-d-din Khan, Bahadur, Firiiz Jang. On Bahadur 
Shah’s death, he attempted to espouse the cause of ‘Azimu-sh-shan, 
1 In many works there is a curious mistake as to Nizamu-l-mulk’s age. He is 
said to have died in 1161 H., (1748), at the age of one hundred and four years. 
Orme, “ Military Transactions,” Madras reprint, I, 122, is the first to make this 
statement. Orme was in Madras at the time of the Nizam’s death (1748), and ought 
to have known the truth; but then he had no knowledge of Persian and no access 
to written authorities. Grant Duff, “ History of the Mahrattahs,” Bombay reprint, 
265, repeats the statement, probably copying from Orme. Grant Duff was acquaint¬ 
ed with both the Ma? dsiru-l-umard, and the Khizdnah-i-' amir ah. a reference to 
either of which would have shown him that Nizamu-l-mulk’s birth year was 1082 H.; 
and therefore, in 116 L H., when he died, he could have been no more than 79 lunar 
or 77 solar years of age. This is the age given by Elphinstone, “ History,” 64 1. 
