Mughals in the Telugu country

For close to ninety years the Mughal emperors were the overlords of the Telugu country.¹ At first they ruled through a tributary king, and then directly.¹ In 1636 a Mughal army was in the Deccan.¹ Faced with it, Abdullah Qutb Shah of Golconda accepted Shah Jahan as his suzerain (overlord).¹ He promised tribute, struck coins in the emperor’s name and had him proclaimed in the Friday sermon.¹

In 1687 Aurangzeb took Golconda and annexed the kingdom.²³ It became the Mughal province (subah) of Haidarabad.²³ It remained a province until 1724.⁴⁵ In that year the viceroy of the Deccan, Nizam-ul-Mulk, defeated and killed its governor Mubariz Khan at Shakar Kheda in Berar.⁴⁵ He then made himself master of the Deccan.⁴⁵ This page tells the story from the Mughal side. For Golconda’s side, see the Qutb Shahis, Abul Hasan Tana Shah and Golconda Fort. For what followed 1724, see the Asaf Jahis.

The sources

The narrative comes mainly from Persian histories written for the Mughal court, and from the records of the English East India Company.⁶⁷⁸ The most useful Persian work for this period is Khafi Khan’s Muntakhabu-l Lubab.⁶⁷⁸ Elliot and Dowson printed long extracts from it in English in 1877.⁶ Khafi Khan was in the imperial camp during the war of 1708–09, and he counted the dead on the field near Hyderabad.⁷⁸

Jadunath Sarkar’s History of Aurangzib (1912–30) is built on these chronicles, together with the court newsletters and the Madras records.⁹¹⁰ So is William Irvine’s Later Mughals (1922), edited by Sarkar.⁹¹⁰

For the province itself there is the Chahar Gulshan, a survey of about 1720.¹¹¹²¹³ Sarkar translated it in his India of Aurangzib (1901).¹¹ For the coast there is the Political Survey of the Northern Circars by James Grant, printed with the Fifth Report of the House of Commons (1812).¹² The Kistna manual calls Grant the Resident at Hyderabad.¹³ The Madras district manuals and gazetteers add local detail, which does not always agree with the chronicles.¹⁴¹⁵

Overlordship, 1636–1656

The Mughals entered the Deccan from the north.¹ In February 1636 Shah Jahan arrived at Daulatabad with three armies totalling 50,000 men.¹ He was ready to invade Bijapur and Golconda if they did not submit.¹ Sarkar says that “the news of this immense armament cowed Abdullah, the king of Golkonda”.¹ Abdullah “agreed to become a vassal of the Mughals”.¹

In April 1636 Abdullah promised a yearly tribute.¹ He had gold and silver coins struck at his capital in the name of Shah Jahan.¹ He also had the emperor proclaimed “from the pulpit as his suzerain”.¹

The treaty with Bijapur that followed declared Golconda “a State under imperial protection”.¹⁶ It fixed Golconda’s frontier with Bijapur at the Manjira river.¹⁶ It also forbade the Bijapur king to demand presents from Golconda.¹⁶ Sarkar later summed up the settlement: the treaties of 1636 “made Golkonda a protected tributary State”.¹⁷

James Grant wrote from the Company’s revenue papers.¹⁸ He says that the standard assessment (the fixed revenue demand) of the coastal districts was “ascertained by a general statement in 1635”.¹⁸ That was the year “when the Princes of that line became tributary to Shah Jehan”.¹⁸ So the date of the submission appears as 1636 in Sarkar, but as 1635 in Grant and in other works on this site.¹¹⁸

The tribute was fixed in gold hun, the coin of the south.¹⁷ Sarkar gives it as two lakhs of hun a year, paid at the old rate of eight lakhs of rupees.¹⁷ The exchange value of the hun rose from four rupees in 1636 to five in 1654.¹⁷ The Mughals then demanded the difference for all past years, a new burden of twenty lakhs.¹⁷

The tribute “was always in arrears”.¹⁷ Prince Aurangzeb, viceroy of the Deccan, also rebuked the king for conquering the Karnatak without his overlord’s leave.¹⁷

Meanwhile the Golconda kingdom grew to the east and south.¹⁹ Sarkar records that its troops occupied the coast “from the Chilka lake to the Penner river”.¹⁹ Srikakulam (then Chicacole) became the seat of a Qutb Shahi faujdar (military governor) some time before 1641.¹⁹ In that year the first faujdar, Sher Muhammad Khan, built a mosque there.¹⁹ In 1652 a Rajput officer of Golconda seized Visakhapatnam (then Vizagapatam).¹⁹

Aurangzeb’s viceroyalty and the war of 1656

Aurangzeb took leave of his father at Daulatabad on 14 July 1636 to govern the Deccan.²⁰²¹ He returned as viceroy in 1653.²⁰²¹ Sarkar describes Golconda at this time as “a very fertile and carefully irrigated country”.²¹ Its capital was the centre of the world’s diamond trade.²¹ Its port of Machilipatnam (then Masulipatam) was “the best anchorage in the Bay of Bengal”.²¹ Its excise (tax) on tobacco and toddy yielded a large revenue.²¹

In 1655–56 the quarrel between Abdullah and his minister Mir Jumla gave Aurangzeb his chance.²²²³ He sent his son Muhammad Sultan to Hyderabad, then followed him and besieged the king in Golconda.²²²³ He pressed his father to order annexation.²²²³ But Shah Jahan ordered peace instead, persuaded by Dara Shukoh and the Golconda envoy at Delhi.²³²⁴

The terms were settled in April 1656.²⁴ Muhammad Sultan married Abdullah’s daughter, and the king swore on the Quran to obey the emperor.²⁴ Shah Jahan sent a written agreement “stamped with the impression of his palm dipped in vermilion, promising to protect Qutb Shah”.²⁴

The indemnity (war payment) was fixed at one krore of rupees, and later reduced.²⁵²⁴²⁶ Besides the tribute, the king “had to cede the district of Ramgir”.²⁵²⁴²⁶ Sarkar identifies Ramgir with Manikdrug and Chinnur, between the Painganga and the Godavari.²⁵²⁴²⁶

Aurangzeb wanted Ramgir to bring the Mughal province of Telingana nearer to the Karnatak.²⁷²⁸ Mir Jumla had conquered the Karnatak for Golconda.²⁷²⁸ Aurangzeb persuaded the emperor that this land was Mir Jumla’s personal jagir (assignment of land revenue), and so part of the empire.²⁷²⁸ The king was ordered to recall his officers from it.²⁷²⁸ See Abdullah Qutb Shah and Golconda Fort for the siege itself.

A tributary kingdom, 1656–1685

For nearly thirty years after Aurangzeb became emperor, Golconda was left alone.²⁹ Sarkar explains this by the Mughals’ long wars with the Marathas and Bijapur.²⁹ He notes that Qutb Shah “paid tribute to the imperial Government more regularly than the Sultan of Bijapur”.²⁹

All the same, the grievances piled up:²⁹³⁰

• The indemnity of 1656 and the yearly tribute of two lakhs of hun were “perpetually in arrears”.²⁹³⁰
• During the war of succession, the king had seized Gandikota and Siddhavatam (then Sidhout) from Mir Jumla’s agents, until Aurangzeb recovered them.²⁹³⁰
• His officers took Malkhed and Serum, on the plea that they had belonged to Telingana.²⁹³⁰
• He sent troops to help Bijapur against the Mughals in 1665–66, 1679 and 1685.²⁹³⁰

Above all, Sarkar says, Aurangzeb objected to the king’s welcome of Shivaji at Hyderabad in 1677.³⁰ He also objected to the power of the Brahmin ministers Madanna and Akkanna.³⁰

The conquest, 1685–1687

In 1685 a Mughal army under Prince Shah Alam (Muhammad Muazzam) and Khan Jahan defeated the Golconda forces.³¹³² The commander-in-chief, Muhammad Ibrahim, went over to the prince.³¹³² Hyderabad was plundered before the prince could stop it.³¹³²

Peace was bought with these terms:³³³⁴³⁵

• a payment of one krore and twenty lakhs of rupees³³³⁴³⁵
• the promise of the yearly tribute³³³⁴³⁵
• the dismissal of Madanna and Akkanna³³³⁴³⁵
• the surrender of Malkhed and Serum³³³⁴³⁵

Madanna and Akkanna were murdered in Golconda in March 1686.³³³⁴³⁵ After the fall of Bijapur in 1686, Aurangzeb marched on Golconda.³⁶

Khafi Khan quotes Aurangzeb’s letter to Abul Hasan.³⁷ In it he charged the king with “placing the reins of authority and government in the hands of vile tyrannical infidels”.³⁷ He also charged him with having sent “a lac of pagodas” to the Maratha king Sambhaji.³⁷

The siege began early in 1687.^38394041 In Khafi Khan’s reckoning it lasted “eight months and ten days”.^38394041 The besiegers filled the ditch with bags of earth, and the garrison countered their mines.^38394041 Famine and disease struck the imperial camp as well as the city.^38394041

Bilgrami adds that Chin Qalich Khan, grandfather of the future Nizam-ul-Mulk, was mortally wounded by a cannon ball.⁴² This happened in an assault on 28 January 1687, and he was buried near Atapur.⁴²

In July Aurangzeb issued a proclamation annexing the kingdom.²³ He appointed his own magistrates and revenue collectors to every place in it.²³ As Sarkar translates, he said: “How long can Abul Hasan remain hidden in the fort, when his towns villages and cornfields are in our hands?”²³

At the same time the khutba (Friday sermon) was read in the emperor’s name.³ A censor of morals (muhtasib) was posted at Hyderabad.³ His orders were to put down Hindu usages, demolish temples and build a mosque.³

Golconda fell on 21 September 1687.³⁴³⁴⁰ An Afghan officer of the garrison, Abdullah Khan Pani, opened a postern gate (a small back gate).³⁴³⁴⁰ A party under Ruhullah Khan entered the fort at about three in the morning.³⁴³⁴⁰ Abul Hasan was sent as a prisoner to Daulatabad, on a pension of Rs 50,000 a year.⁴⁴

Khafi Khan and Sarkar describe his dignity on the morning of his capture, and his courteous reception by the emperor.⁴⁵⁴⁴ The Venetian Niccolao Manucci tells a different story.⁴⁶⁴⁷ He says Abul Hasan was left sitting in the sun on an elephant.⁴⁶⁴⁷ He was beaten when he refused to say what he had done with his treasure.⁴⁶⁴⁷

Sarkar follows Khafi Khan on the spoils taken at Golconda.⁴⁸ He puts them at nearly seven krores of rupees in cash, besides plate and jewels.⁴⁸ He puts the revenue of the conquered kingdom at two krores and eighty-seven lakhs.⁴⁸ Aurangzeb stayed near Golconda until 25 January 1688 “in order to settle the administration of the conquered country”.⁴⁹

The subah of Haidarabad

The conquered kingdom became the subah of Haidarabad.⁵⁰⁵¹ The Chahar Gulshan says that the city “was at first known as Daru-l-jihad, [the place of religious war], then it became celebrated as Furkhanda-buniad”.⁵⁰ Bilgrami adds that the name Dar-ul-jihad was given “after the sack of the city by the Emperor Aurangzeb in 1098 A.H.”.⁵¹ He says the name Farkhunda Bunyad was restored under Shah Alam.⁵¹

The same survey lists twelve sarkars (districts) in about 1720:¹¹⁵²⁵³

• Devarakonda
• Warangal
• Rajgopal
• Kam-bhim-mandi
• Ibrahimpatan
• Nizampatan
• Muhammadnagar
• Kulpur
• Rajahmundry
• the mahals (revenue divisions) beyond the Krishna
• the mahals on this side of it
• a twelfth of miscellaneous dues, among them the mint, the tax on toddy and the diamond mines¹¹⁵²⁵³

Sarkar’s tables give eighteen sarkars and 129 mahals for about 1700.¹¹ They show the provincial revenue falling from five krores of rupees in 1697 to about 2.73 krores in 1720.¹¹ The Chahar Gulshan also credits Abul Hasan with settling skilled craftsmen in the city.⁵⁴ It says that “the handicrafts of the place have remained famous in the world up to this day”.⁵⁴

The first governors were men of the old kingdom.⁵⁵ Sarkar writes that after the conquest Aurangzeb “wisely retained the former Qutb Shahi officers at their respective posts for some time”.⁵⁵ Muhammad Ibrahim, now called Mahabat Khan, became subahdar (governor) of Haidarabad.⁵⁵ A Golconda officer, Ali Askar Khan, became faujdar of the Karnatak, with his headquarters at Kadapa (then Cuddapah).⁵⁵

In January 1688 these men were replaced.⁵⁶ Mahabat Khan was sent to Lahore, and Ruhullah Khan received the government of Haidarabad.⁵⁶ The governors who followed are known only in part:

Governor	Period	Source
Muhammad Ibrahim, Mahabat Khan	1687–88	Sarkar, Aurangzib V, pp. 56–57
Ruhullah Khan	from January 1688	Sarkar, Aurangzib V, p. 57; Bilgrami, p. 97
Mir Bahadur Dil, Jan Sipar Khan	until his death in AH 1113 (1701–02)	Bilgrami, p. 97
Rustam Dil Khan, his son	AH 1113 (1701–02) to 1708, with a spell as faujdar of the Bijapur Karnatak	Bilgrami, p. 97; Irvine I, p. 52
Prince Kam Bakhsh (as claimant to the throne)	1708	Irvine I, pp. 52–60
Yusuf Khan	under Bahadur Shah (1707–12) and still in 1713	Khafi Khan, p. 412; Irvine I, pp. 223, 263
Mubariz Khan	about 1713 to 1724	Irvine II, p. 138

The table draws on Sarkar, Bilgrami, Khafi Khan and Irvine, as listed in each row.^{55565758596010} Sarkar mentions Rustam Dil Khan being sent “from Haidarabad” with troops as early as 1695.⁶¹ So he may have acted for his father before 1702.⁶¹

Rustam Dil Khan built the Kali Masjid outside the Yaqutpura gate of Hyderabad in AH 1114 (1702; AH is the Islamic way of counting years).⁶² See the Kali Masjid inscription, Rustam Dil Khan and Mubariz Khan.

Above the subahdars stood the viceroy of the six Deccan provinces.⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵ These viceroys were:⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵

• Zulfiqar Khan, who left Daud Khan Panni in the Deccan as his deputy when he followed Bahadur Shah north⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵
• Nizam-ul-Mulk, from 1713⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵
• then Husain Ali Khan⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵

How the province was governed

Grant Duff, the historian of the Marathas, describes how the Mughals took possession of a district.⁶⁶ Two officers were appointed, the faujdar and the khalsa diwan (revenue officer).⁶⁶ The faujdar commanded the troops and kept the peace.⁶⁶ He was allowed about a quarter of the collections for his establishment (his staff).⁶⁶ The diwan collected the revenue, whether for the treasury or for a jagirdar (holder of a jagir).⁶⁶

The faujdars, “in conjunction with the Dewan, farmed out the districts to the Deshmookhs or Dessayes, and the Dewan realized the amount from them”.⁶⁶ In other words, the local officers paid a fixed sum for the right to collect the revenue, and the diwan collected that sum from them.⁶⁶

The Kistna district manual of 1883 describes the same arrangement on the coast.¹⁴ There, it says, the subahdar at Hyderabad ruled through faujdars.¹⁴ They “assisted Revenue officers called Desmukhs and Despondis to collect the government dues”.¹⁴ These dues came from “renters who were responsible for one or more villages”.¹⁴

The deshmukh and the deshpande were old Deccan offices, older than the Mughals.⁶⁷⁶⁸ Grant calls the deshmukh “at once, the agent of government, the head farmer, and natural representative of the people”.⁶⁷⁶⁸ He calls the deshpande the “provincial register”.⁶⁷⁶⁸ This office was “for the most part exercised by Bramins”.⁶⁷⁶⁸ It was “the only one in its nature hereditary, to be found in the whole system of Mussulman government”.⁶⁷⁶⁸ Every grant, rule and rent-roll had to pass through the deshpande’s office (daftar) to be valid.⁶⁷⁶⁸

Murshid Quli Khan was Shah Jahan’s diwan in the Deccan.⁶⁹ In 1654 he brought Todar Mal’s revenue system there.⁶⁹ Grant says that the southern titles “desmook, chief of a district, or desfandeah, its bramin, recorder, and accomptant” were then used.⁶⁹ They took the place of the more usual zamindar (landholder) and qanungo.⁶⁹

The Imperial Gazetteer of Hyderabad, on the other hand, says that under Muslim rule the revenues “seem to have been generally farmed out”.⁷⁰⁷¹ It says that only traces of the Bahmani and Qutb Shahi settlements survived.⁷⁰⁷¹ Regular settlements, it says, were made only in Berar and the Maratha districts.⁷⁰⁷¹

On the coast the Mughals took over the Qutb Shahi assessment rather than making a new one.¹⁸⁷² Grant says the standard assessment (jama kamil) of the Circars was ascertained in 1635.¹⁸⁷² It was “finally enrolled on the Imperial Khalsa Records of Alem-geer, on the entire reduction of the kingdom of Hydrabad”.¹⁸⁷² It remained the standard, “with a small addition”, until the French took over in 1753.¹⁸⁷² Grant thought it “wholly inadequate” by the time of the Mughal conquest.¹⁸⁷²

In Rayalaseema, Thomas Munro is quoted in the Anantapur gazetteer.⁷³ He found that Aurangzeb “appears to have adopted the Kamil which he found established”.⁷³ Aurangzeb entered it in his grants with a deduction for waste.⁷³ Munro put the decline down to “the depredations of the Poligars” (raids by local chiefs).⁷³

The coast: the Northern Sarkars

In July 1687, before Golconda fell, the Mughals gained Kondapalli by bribery.⁵⁵⁷⁴ Sarkar calls it “the second strongest fort in Telingana and the king’s chief treasury and arsenal”.⁵⁵ Mughal parties were plundering within three days’ march of Machilipatnam.⁵⁵⁷⁴ Grant Duff says that Rajahmundry and the ports of Machilipatnam and Ganjam were then occupied.⁷⁵

Sarkar notes that the coast north of the Krishna “formed a separate province, under its own viceroy”.⁷⁶ The Madras records called it “the Gingerlee Country”.⁷⁶ Its capital was Machilipatnam, and it included Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam.⁷⁶

The district gazetteers describe the familiar five sarkars: Guntur, Kondapalli, Eluru (then Ellore), Rajahmundry and Srikakulam.⁷⁷⁷⁸ The English later called them the Northern Circars.⁷⁷⁷⁸ Srikakulam took in the later Ganjam and Visakhapatnam districts.⁷⁷⁷⁸ It was still ruled “by a Faujdar residing at the town after which it was named”.⁷⁷⁷⁸

Grant gives the assessment of each sarkar as it stood on the Mughal records:¹⁸⁷⁹

• Guntur or Murtazanagar, about 11.7 lakhs of rupees¹⁸⁷⁹
• Kondapalli or Mustafanagar, 11.6 lakhs¹⁸⁷⁹
• Eluru, 5.6 lakhs¹⁸⁷⁹
• Machilipatnam with Nizampatnam (then Nizampatam), 7.9 lakhs, including its customs, mint duties and salt¹⁸⁷⁹
• Rajahmundry, 4.2 lakhs¹⁸⁷⁹
• Srikakulam, the “most distant frontier province to the north, only explored along the sea-coast”, 8.4 lakhs¹⁸⁷⁹

In each sarkar, part of the land was kept as haveli, the crown’s own estate.⁷⁹ It paid for the garrisons and the civil establishment (the officials).⁷⁹

Grant judged that Aurangzeb was busy with the larger provinces and the Marathas.¹² So he never made the coast “as productive as they ought to have been to the treasury”.¹² After his death, Grant wrote, the coast fell into “a total suspension of all regular governments”.¹² The Godavari gazetteer agrees.⁷⁸ It says that “the system (or want of system) of administration remained unchanged, and disorders continued as freely as before”.⁷⁸

The Company’s Committee of Circuit made an inquiry in 1786.⁸⁰ It recorded that “during the Mogul Government there were courts of justice established at Rajahmundry and Ellore, where Kazis administered justice according to Muhammadan law”.⁸⁰ The faujdars kept capital cases (cases punishable by death) for themselves.⁸⁰ Each place had a kotwal to keep the police.⁸⁰ By 1786, “of these nothing but the names remain”.⁸⁰

In the Krishna (then Kistna) district, according to the manual, the faujdar at Kondapalli was “often too weak” to support the deshpandes.¹⁴ So the renters began to claim their villages as hereditary, and “to assume the title of Zemindar”.¹⁴

The Karnatak and the poligars of Rayalaseema

The Mughals called the southern conquests of Golconda and Bijapur the Karnatak.⁹⁷⁶ Sarkar divides it at the Palar river into the Haidarabadi Karnatak and the Bijapuri Karnatak.⁹⁷⁶ Each had an upland (balaghat) and a lowland (painghat).⁹⁷⁶

The upland of the Haidarabadi Karnatak “began south of Nandiyal”.⁹⁷⁶ It included Siddhavatam, Gandikota, Gooty, Gurramkonda and Kadapa, the seat of its government.⁹⁷⁶ Its lowland “embraced the sea-coast from Gantur to Sadras”.⁹⁷⁶

Grant Duff gives a wider lowland.⁷⁵ It ran from Guntur “along the Coromandel coast” as far south as the Coleroon.⁷⁵ He gives the same upland districts of Gooty, Gurramkonda, Gandikota and Siddhavatam.⁷⁵ See Gandikota and Gooty.

The country was not easily held.⁸¹⁸² In 1688 Aurangzeb made frequent changes in the governorship of the Haidarabadi Karnatak.⁸¹⁸² Late in 1689 some former Golconda officers whom he had taken into his service rebelled.⁸¹⁸² They were Muhammad Sadiq, Yachapa Nayak and Ismail Khan Maka.⁸¹⁸²

These officers allied themselves with the Maratha king Rajaram.⁸¹⁸² They began “to usurp the country and collect the revenue”.⁸¹⁸² This went on until Zulfiqar Khan marched down in 1690, by way of Raichur, Kurnool, Nandyal, Kadapa and Gurramkonda.⁸¹⁸²

In the west, in Grant Duff’s account, Masaud Khan, the former regent of Bijapur, gave up Adoni to Prince Azam and Ghazi-ud-din.⁸³ The Kurnool manual names the conqueror Ghiyas-ud-din Khan.¹⁵⁸⁴ The Kurnool country was later given as a jagir to the Afghan general Daud Khan Panni.⁸³¹⁵⁸⁴ His brother Ibrahim Khan held it in 1724.⁸³¹⁵⁸⁴

The Cuddapah gazetteer says that until 1687 the only agents of the central power there were the nawabs of Gandikota and Kadapa.⁸⁵ They could not subdue the local chiefs.⁸⁵ By the beginning of the eighteenth century, it says, “the condition of this part of the Deccan fell little short of anarchy”.⁸⁵

The Anantapur gazetteer gives a local example.⁸⁶ Aurangzeb reduced the tribute (peshkash) of one family of poligars (local military chiefs) to 11,200 pagodas.⁸⁶ But he required it to keep 1,200 foot and 150 horse ready for service.⁸⁶

Kam Bakhsh at Hyderabad, 1708–1709

When Aurangzeb died in 1707, his youngest son Kam Bakhsh was on his way to govern Bijapur.⁸⁷⁵⁸ He proclaimed himself emperor, struck coins in his own name and marched on Hyderabad.⁸⁷⁵⁸ There the subahdar Rustam Dil Khan submitted to him, but the commandant of Golconda refused to surrender.⁸⁷⁵⁸

Within months Kam Bakhsh had Rustam Dil Khan trampled to death by an elephant, and executed other officers.⁸⁸⁸⁹⁹⁰ He also sent a force against the diwan of Machilipatnam, who held thirty-two lakhs of imperial treasure.⁸⁸⁸⁹⁹⁰

His elder brother, the new emperor Bahadur Shah, marched south.⁹¹⁷⁸ On 13 January 1709 the Afghans of Daud Khan Panni defeated and took Kam Bakhsh near Hyderabad.⁹¹⁷⁸ He died of his wounds the same night.⁹¹⁷⁸ Bahadur Shah visited the palaces of Hyderabad before returning north.⁹²

Disorder and the rebel Papa Rai

The years after Aurangzeb’s death were remembered as a time of disorder.⁹³ Sarkar quotes an account of the time which says that the Marathas “even attacked walled cities like Haidarabad”.⁹³ It says that the population of Hyderabad, as of Bijapur and Burhanpur, had fallen.⁹³

The most famous rebel was a man Khafi Khan calls Pap Rai, “by birth a toddy-seller”.⁹⁴⁵⁹⁹⁵ He is remembered in Telangana as Sarvaya Papadu.⁹⁴⁵⁹⁹⁵ From a mud fort at Shahpur in the sarkar of Bhongir, he plundered the country and killed a faujdar’s officer, Qasim Khan.⁹⁴⁵⁹⁹⁵ In Muharram AH 1120 (1708) he sacked Warangal.⁹⁴⁵⁹⁹⁵

After a siege of nine months at his second fort, Pap Rai fled.⁹⁴⁵⁹⁹⁵ He was betrayed and executed, and his head was sent to the court.⁹⁴⁵⁹⁹⁵ Local tradition places that last siege at Tatikonda.⁹⁴⁵⁹⁹⁵ The Kistna manual tells a different story, in which he was killed by an officer of Mubariz Khan.¹⁴ His page separates the record from the legend.

The Marathas: chauth and sardeshmukhi

The Maratha claim was to a share of the revenue: chauth, one quarter, and sardeshmukhi, a further tenth.⁹⁶ Grant Duff describes the Maratha leaders of Aurangzeb’s last years levying tribute wherever they rode.⁹⁶ They took it “under the various heads of Chouth, Surdeshmookhee, and Ghasdana”.⁹⁶

In 1718 Husain Ali Khan, viceroy of the Deccan, made a treaty with the Maratha king Shahu.⁹⁷⁹⁸ In 1719 the emperor issued grants of the chauth and sardeshmukhi of “the six Soobehs of the Deccan, including the Hyderabad and Beejapoor Carnatic”.⁹⁷⁹⁸ The condition was that Shahu kept 15,000 horse to help the imperial governors keep order.⁹⁷⁹⁸

Gribble adds that Shahu made himself answerable for the security of the districts on which he levied chauth.⁹⁹ Grant Duff prints the revenue of the six provinces as the Mughal records registered it.⁹⁸ For Haidarabad it is more than six krores of rupees.⁹⁸

Mubariz Khan, governor of Haidarabad, did not accept the agreement.¹⁰⁰ Khafi Khan says he “apparently did not pay the chauth according to the agreement made by the Saiyids”.¹⁰⁰ He “had shown much activity, in punishing the Mahrattas”.¹⁰⁰ But their officials still levied the chauth “whenever and wherever they found the opportunity, … and many of the roads were closed”.¹⁰⁰

After 1724 Nizam-ul-Mulk arranged that a sum should be paid from his treasury in place of the chauth of the Haidarabad subah.¹⁰¹ He also arranged that the sardeshmukhi levied from the cultivators should be given up.¹⁰¹

Mints and coins

Coins are among the best evidence of Mughal sovereignty in the south. Stanley Lane-Poole wrote a catalogue of the British Museum coins (1892).¹⁰² He notes that coins in Aurangzeb’s name were struck “from Sholapur, Golkondah, Bijapur, and Haidarabad”.¹⁰² They were struck “even from Masulipatan and Chinapatan (Madras), far down on the Coromandel coast”.¹⁰²

Lane-Poole lists Golconda among the Deccan mints “now appearing for the first time” under Aurangzeb.¹⁰³ Others in the list are Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, Chinapatan (“the old name for Madras”) and Masulipatan.¹⁰³

Whitehead’s catalogue of the Lahore Museum coins (1914) adds that Gulkanda (Golconda) coins of Shah Jahan’s period are known.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵ The Museum’s rupee of Aurangzeb from Haidarabad was “apparently the earliest known issue” of that mint.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵ It bears the epithet (title) Daru-l-jihad, “abode of holy war”.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵ Kam Bakhsh struck coins there in both gold and silver.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵ Under Shah Alam I the epithet was changed to Farkhunda bunyad, “of auspicious foundation”.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵

Under Farrukhsiyar new mints appear in the south.^106107108 They struck a small gold coin on the pattern of the southern hun.^106107108 Lane-Poole names Imtiyazgarh, “Distinction-Fort”, which he explains as “Aurangzib’s new name for Adoni”.¹⁰⁶ He also names Gooty (Guti).¹⁰⁶ Whitehead knew a half-rupee of Aurangzeb on which the mint is still called Adoni.¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸

Whitehead also records gold mohurs of Farrukhsiyar from Sikakul, “identified with Chicacole”.¹⁰⁹¹¹⁰ He calls it the capital of the Mughal sarkar of Srikakulam.¹⁰⁹¹¹⁰ He also records rupees of Aurangzeb from Machhlipatan (Machilipatnam).¹⁰⁹¹¹⁰

Irvine counted the coins of Farrukhsiyar in the British Museum, Lahore and Calcutta collections.¹¹¹ He assigns eight to mints in the Haidarabad subah: three from Arcot, one from Adoni, three from Chinapatan and one from Gooty.¹¹¹

Lane-Poole’s table of mints lists Haidarabad only under Kam Bakhsh.¹¹²¹⁰⁶ His notes credit Kam Bakhsh with adding it to the Mughal mints, although his introduction mentions coins of Aurangzeb from there.¹¹²¹⁰⁶ The Lahore rupee of Aurangzeb from Haidarabad is dated AH 1099 (1687–88).¹¹³

The European factories

The Dutch, English and French traded at Machilipatnam and other coast towns under Qutb Shahi licences.⁷⁴ The Mughal conquest put these licences in question.⁷⁴ The Kistna manual quotes the Fort St. George records of October 1687.⁷⁴ Four hundred horsemen had come to Machilipatnam “from the Mogul with Tasherffs for the Dutch and French”.⁷⁴ They also brought “strict orders to seize and secure all Englishmen and their concernes”.⁷⁴

At that time the English Company was at war with Aurangzeb in Bengal.⁷⁴ The Madras Council voted 50,000 pagodas “in purchasing forbearance from the Emperor”.⁷⁴

In September 1689, Sarkar records, the emperor’s officer in Telingana seized the English factory (trading post) at Visakhapatnam.¹¹⁴ He killed three of the factors (traders), and the Machilipatnam factory was also seized.¹¹⁴ The Visakhapatnam gazetteer says Aurangzeb “issued orders that the English should be driven from his dominions”.¹¹⁵

The quarrel was made up.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷ In 1690 Elihu Yale, governor of Madras, received a cowle (grant) from Zulfiqar Khan for the English possessions on the coast.¹¹⁶ In 1708 Zulfiqar Khan asked Pitt, then governor, to stop Kam Bakhsh if he tried to escape by sea.¹¹⁷

Mubariz Khan, Nizam-ul-Mulk and Shakar Kheda

By Irvine’s reckoning, Mubariz Khan had governed Haidarabad for nearly twelve years in 1724.¹¹⁸¹⁰ In that year the court at Delhi was alarmed by Nizam-ul-Mulk’s return to the Deccan.¹¹⁸¹⁰ It appointed Mubariz Khan viceroy of all six provinces.¹¹⁸¹⁰

At the time Mubariz Khan was besieging the fort of Phulchari near Machilipatnam, held by Appa Rao.¹¹⁹ At Hyderabad he was joined by:¹¹⁹

• Bahadur Khan Panni, faujdar of Kurnool¹¹⁹
• a son of Abdun-nabi Khan, faujdar of Kadapa¹¹⁹
• an officer of Saadat-ullah Khan, faujdar of the Karnatak¹¹⁹

The armies met at Shakar Kheda in Berar.⁴⁵ On the afternoon of 23 Muharram AH 1137, Mubariz Khan and his chief officers were killed.⁴⁵ In Irvine’s conversion this date is 11 October 1724.⁴⁵

Khafi Khan says that Mubariz Khan’s son had been left in charge at Hyderabad.¹⁰⁰ He held out in “the fortress of Muhammad-nagar, near the city”.¹⁰⁰ Then Nizam-ul-Mulk gave him grants of jagirs, and so persuaded him “to give up the keys of the fortress”.¹⁰⁰

The emperor accepted the result.¹⁰⁰ He sent Nizam-ul-Mulk the title of Asaf Jah, “with directions to settle the country, repress the turbulent, punish the rebels, and cherish the people”.¹⁰⁰

Grant looked back from the Company’s side.¹² He wrote that the battle “transferred in fact, though not in form, the sovereignty of this great limb of the Mogul empire”.¹² It passed “from the house of Timeer to that of Assiphean”.¹²

The Mughal emperor remained the sovereign in name.¹²⁰ Grant notes that when the Company took the Northern Circars, it obtained sanads (grants) from “the actual rightful acknowledged emperor of Hindostan”.¹²⁰ The Nizam was then made to confirm these grants by treaty (1766).¹²⁰ See the Asaf Jahis and Mughals, Asaf Jahis & the British.¹²⁰

Where the sources disagree

• The date of the submission. Sarkar dates Abdullah’s submission to April 1636.¹ Grant dates the general statement of the coastal revenue that went with it to 1635.¹⁸
• The capture of Golconda. Khafi Khan and Sarkar describe Abul Hasan’s calm and his courteous treatment.⁴⁵⁴⁴ Manucci says he was humiliated and beaten.⁴⁷ The Old Style (older European calendar) date is 21 September 1687 (Sarkar).³ Manucci’s editor gives 1 October 1687, New Style.¹²¹
• The extent of the Haidarabadi Karnatak. Sarkar ends it at the Palar and Sadras.⁹ Grant Duff carries it to the Coleroon.⁷⁵
• The governors of Haidarabad. Irvine calls the subahdar killed by Kam Bakhsh “Jan Sipar Khan (Rustam Dil Khan)”.⁸⁹ Bilgrami makes Jan Sipar Khan the father, who died in 1701–02, and Rustam Dil Khan the son.⁵⁷ An earlier book, which Grant Duff calls “Scott’s Deccan”, says that Qasim Khan was left as faujdar at Hyderabad after the conquest.¹²² Grant Duff thought this was a mistake.¹²² In his view, it arose because Qasim Khan was reinforced from Hyderabad at that time.¹²²
• The end of Papa Rai. Khafi Khan has him executed under the subahdar Yusuf Khan, after the sack of Warangal in 1708.⁵⁹ The Kistna manual has him killed by Abid Khan, an officer of Mubariz Khan.¹⁴
• The date of Shakar Kheda. Irvine converts 23 Muharram AH 1137 to 11 October 1724.⁴ The Kistna manual gives October 1724.¹³ The Kurnool manual gives 22 Muharram (24 September 1724).⁸⁴ Gribble and the Anantapur gazetteer put the battle in 1723.¹⁰¹¹²³

Footnotes

1. Sarkar, History of Aurangzib, Vols. I–II (1912), p. 19 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵

2. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 450 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 451 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²

4. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. II (1922), p. 145 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

5. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. II (1922), p. 148 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

6. Khafi Khan, Muntakhabu-l Lubab, in H. M. Elliot and John Dowson (eds.), The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, Vol. VII (1877), p. 315 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 63 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

8. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 64 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

9. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 50 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

10. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. II (1922), p. 138 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

11. Jadunath Sarkar, India of Aurangzib: Topography, Statistics and Roads (1901), p. xciii (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

12. James Grant, “Political Survey of the Northern Circars”, in W. K. Firminger (ed.), The Fifth Report from the Select Committee … on the Affairs of the East India Company, Vol. III (1918), p. 11 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

13. Mackenzie, Kistna District (1883), p. 41 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

14. Mackenzie, Kistna District (1883), p. 40 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

15. Narahari Gopalakristnamah Chetty, A Manual of the Kurnool District (1886), p. 29 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

16. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 21 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

17. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 118 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

18. Grant, “Political Survey”, in Firminger, Fifth Report, Vol. III (1918), p. 47 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷

19. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 119 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

20. Jadunath Sarkar, History of Aurangzib, Vols. I–II (1912), p. 16 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

21. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 117 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

22. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), pp. 127–128 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

23. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 131 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

24. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 133 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

25. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 132 and note (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

26. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 134 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

27. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 136 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

28. Sarkar, Aurangzib I–II (1912), p. 137 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

29. Jadunath Sarkar, History of Aurangzib, Vol. IV (2nd ed., 1930), p. 405 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

30. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 406 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

31. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 319 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

32. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 320 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

33. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 416 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

34. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 417 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

35. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 321 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

36. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 323 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

37. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 325 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

38. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 328 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

39. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 330 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

40. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 332 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

41. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 449 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

42. Bilgrami, Landmarks (1927), p. 89 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

43. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 452 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

44. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 454 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

45. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), pp. 333–334 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

46. Manucci, Storia do Mogor, Vol. II (1907), p. 307 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

47. Manucci, Storia do Mogor, Vol. II (1907), p. 308 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

48. Sarkar, Aurangzib IV (1930), p. 456 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

49. Jadunath Sarkar, History of Aurangzib, Vol. V (1924), p. 5 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

50. Chahar Gulshan, tr. in Sarkar, India of Aurangzib (1901), p. 157 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

51. Syed Ali Asgar Bilgrami, Landmarks of the Deccan (1927), p. 17 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

52. Chahar Gulshan, tr. in Sarkar, India of Aurangzib (1901), p. 159 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

53. Chahar Gulshan, tr. in Sarkar, India of Aurangzib (1901), p. 160 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

54. Chahar Gulshan, tr. in Sarkar, India of Aurangzib (1901), p. 158 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

55. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 56 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

56. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 57 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

57. Bilgrami, Landmarks (1927), p. 97 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

58. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 52 and note (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

59. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), p. 412 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

60. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 263, and p. 223, note (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

61. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 119 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

62. Bilgrami, Landmarks (1927), p. 96 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

63. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), p. 422 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

64. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 262 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

65. J. D. B. Gribble, A History of the Deccan, Vol. I (1896), p. 356 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

66. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), p. 347 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

67. Grant, “Political Survey”, in Firminger, Fifth Report, Vol. III (1918), p. 22 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

68. Grant, “Political Survey”, in Firminger, Fifth Report, Vol. III (1918), pp. 24–25 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

69. Grant, “Political Survey”, in Firminger, Fifth Report, Vol. III (1918), p. 35 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

70. Imperial Gazetteer of India: Hyderabad State (1909), p. 59 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

71. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), p. 60 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

72. Grant, “Political Survey”, in Firminger, Fifth Report, Vol. III (1918), p. 49 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

73. Thomas Munro, quoted in Francis, Anantapur (1905), p. 103 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

74. Gordon Mackenzie, A Manual of the Kistna District (1883), p. 39 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

75. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), p. 346 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

76. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 51 and note (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

77. W. Francis, Madras District Gazetteers: Vizagapatam, Vol. I (1907), p. 30 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

78. F. R. Hemingway, Madras District Gazetteers: Godavari, Vol. I (1907), p. 29 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

79. Grant, “Political Survey”, in Firminger, Fifth Report, Vol. III (1918), p. 48 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

80. Hemingway, Godavari (1907), p. 188, quoting the Committee of Circuit’s report of December 1786 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

81. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), pp. 61–62 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

82. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 68 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

83. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), p. 345 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

84. Chetty, Kurnool District (1886), p. 30 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

85. C. F. Brackenbury, Madras District Gazetteers: Cuddapah, Vol. I (1915), p. 38 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

86. Francis, Anantapur (1905), p. 144 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

87. William Irvine, ed. Jadunath Sarkar, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), pp. 50–51 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

88. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), pp. 53–54 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

89. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 58 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

90. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 59 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

91. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 62 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

92. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), pp. 66–67 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

93. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 239 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

94. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), pp. 410–411 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

95. A. Chandra Sekhar (ed.), Census of India 1961, Vol. II, Part VII-B (18): Fairs and Festivals, Warangal District (1964), p. 19, entry “Thatikonda” (PDF p. 42) (censusindia.gov.in↗ (opens in a new tab)). Paraphrased. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

96. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), p. 397 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

97. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), pp. 445–446 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

98. Grant Duff, History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), pp. 450–451 and notes (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

99. Gribble, History of the Deccan (1896), pp. 360–361 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

100. Khafi Khan, in Elliot and Dowson, History of India, Vol. VII (1877), pp. 526–527 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

101. Gribble, History of the Deccan (1896), p. 376 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

102. Stanley Lane-Poole, The Coins of the Moghul Emperors of Hindustan in the British Museum (1892), p. xxxi (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

103. Lane-Poole, Coins of the Moghul Emperors (1892), p. lvii (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

104. Whitehead, Panjab Museum Catalogue, Vol. II (1914), p. xcviii (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

105. Whitehead, Panjab Museum Catalogue, Vol. II (1914), p. lxxii (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

106. Lane-Poole, Coins of the Moghul Emperors (1892), p. lviii (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

107. R. B. Whitehead, Catalogue of Coins in the Panjab Museum, Lahore, Vol. II: Coins of the Mughal Emperors (1914), p. l (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

108. Whitehead, Panjab Museum Catalogue, Vol. II (1914), p. li (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

109. Whitehead, Panjab Museum Catalogue, Vol. II (1914), p. lxxxvi (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

110. Whitehead, Panjab Museum Catalogue, Vol. II (1914), p. cv (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

111. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 400 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

112. Lane-Poole, Coins of the Moghul Emperors (1892), pp. xlvii–xlix (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

113. Whitehead, Panjab Museum Catalogue, Vol. II (1914), p. 238, No. 1680, and pl. XI (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

114. Sarkar, Aurangzib V (1924), p. 333 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

115. Francis, Vizagapatam (1907), p. 37 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

116. Henry Morris, A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Godavery District (1878), p. 192 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

117. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. I (1922), p. 60 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩²

118. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. II (1922), p. 137 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

119. Irvine, Later Mughals, Vol. II (1922), p. 140 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

120. Grant, “Political Survey”, in Firminger, Fifth Report, Vol. III (1918), p. 16 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

121. Niccolao Manucci, tr. William Irvine, Storia do Mogor, Vol. II (1907), p. 306 and note (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩

122. James Grant Duff, A History of the Mahrattas, Vol. I (1826), p. 342, note (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩² ↩³

123. W. Francis, Madras District Gazetteers: Anantapur (1905), p. 22 (archive.org↗ (opens in a new tab)). ↩