[84] Perhaps Sukh Nāg is the Shakar Nāg of Jarrett, II. 361. The Sukh Nāg River is mentioned in Lawrence, 16. It may also be the waterfall mentioned by Bernier, which he says Jahāngīr visited and levelled a rock in order to see properly. [↑]
[85] From Dr. Scully’s list it appears that this is the sāch, the rose-coloured starling, Pastor roseus. See also Vullers, Dictionary, s. v. The bird seen by Jahāngīr may have been a dipper, Lawrence, 153. [↑]
[86] The MSS. have kulhai. [↑]
[87] According to the two I.O. MSS.—which are corroborated by the Iqbāl-nāma—the text has here omitted an important part of the report—presumably a written one—submitted by the Qāẓī and the Mīr ʿAdl. After the words “denied it,” there comes in the MSS. the statement: “The Ḥakīm-zāda (Ḥakīm’s son) produced two witnesses in court. The Sayyids invalidated (or impeached) the testimony of one of them, and the Ḥakīm-zāda brought a third witness and proved his case according to law.” The Iqbāl-nāma, p. 161, has not the whole of this, and it has k͟hārij instead of jārih, but it has the words guwāh-i-s̤ālis̤ (“a third witness”). [↑]
[88] The meaning seems to be that he would in corroboration and ex cautela take the oath. He had already proved his claim in the ordinary way by witnesses and the production of the bond. See the account in the Iqbāl-nāma, 160–63, which is fuller than that in text. [↑]
[89] Muʿāmala-i-kullī ast. “The case was involved” (like a bud?), or perhaps “the case was important.” [↑]
[90] The text wrongly omits the negative. See Iqbāl-nāma, I. 62. [↑]
[91] Apparently this was Ṣāliḥa Bānū d. Qāʾim K. Blochmann, 371, and 477, n. 2. She had the name of Pāds͟hāh-maḥall. See Hawkins’ account in Purchas, IV. 31, and K͟hāfī K. I. 259. He calls the father Qāsim. [↑]
[92] It is G͟hairat K. in I.O. MS., 181. [↑]
[93] For Jalāl K., see Blochmann, 455 and 486. He was grandson of Sult̤ān Ādam. [↑]