117 
1871 .] Notes on Chutia. Ntigpur, Packet , and Palawan. 
“ I have not found out tlie other names. As Durjun Sal’s suc¬ 
cessor was Madliukar Sab, he cannot be the Madhu of Akbar s 
times. It is strange that the proper name of the emperor should 
not have been known in Chutia Nagpur.”* 
The fact mentioned by Col. Dalton that Durjan Sal was impri¬ 
soned for some time is confirmed by an accidental remark in the 
Tuzuk, p. 236, where Jahangir, three years after the conquest by 
Ibrahim Fath-jang, in speaking of the diamond mines of Kokrah, 
says, “ The zamindar is still in prison.” There may even be a 
grain of truth in the recall of Durjan from prison to test some 
diamonds, because on p. 244, Jahangir says that the diamonds 
which Ibrahim Khan had brought from Kokrah had been given to 
the grinders ; “ they were now submitted to me, and among them 
there is one which looks like a sapphire (nilam , the same as ntlmani). 
I have never seen a diamond of such a colour. It weighs several 
surJchs fratis), and my lapidaries fix its value at 3000 rupees, 
though they would give 20,00(f for it, if it were quite white and 
stood the full test.” 
Of Bamgarh, I have hitherto found no notice in Muhammadan 
Historians. It must have been at an early time dependent on 
Bihar, because Chai Champa, according to the Ain, was a Parganah 
belonging to Bih&r. It was assessed at 620,000 dams , or 15,500 
Bupees, and was liable to furnish 20 horse and 600 foot Zamin- 
dari troops. 
Of Pachet, I have only found a short remark in the voluminous 
Pddiskdhndmah (I., b., p. 317). 
no title either, but, as in the case of Nawab, was often used in common parlance 
and in letters ; in fact we find it used after almost every title, from the princes 
down to the lowest courtiers. Bahadur Khan was a title, as Sher Afkan Khan, 
&c. Khan Bahadur is a modern title conferred by the British Government, 
which has thus changed the epithet * Bahadur’ to a title. 
None of these titles were hereditary, and, if we except the title of Khan 
(without addition), no two courtiers had the same title. Thus if a courtier 
had the title of Bahadur Khan, no other courtier had the same ; only on the 
death or dismissal of a Bahadur Khan could the title be conferred on another 
grandee. 
The title of Beg was never conferred under the Mughul rule. It is a Turk! 
title, and was looked upon in India as lower than Khan. 
I trust, I shall be forgiven this long diversion which has nothing to do with 
Chutia Nagpur; but the opinions of our historians are rather hazy on this subject. 
* Babu Rakhal Das Haidar mentions a Rajah Raghunath, who according 
to inscription on p. 109 reigned in Chutia Nagpur in 1665, A.D. 
