Dardistan in 1866, 1886 and 1893 / Being an account of the history, religions, customs, legends, fables, and songs of Gilgit, Chilas, Kandia (Gabrial), Dasin, Chitral, Hunsa, Nagyr, and other parts of the Hindukush, as also a supplement to the second edition of the Hunza and Nagyr handbook and an epitome of part III of the author's "The languages and races of Dardistan"

APPENDICES.

i.	Hunza-Nagyr and the Pamirs.
ii.	Recent Events in Chilas and Chitral.
iii.	Fables, Songs, and Legends of Chitral.
iv.	Races and Languages of the Hindukush.
v.	Anthropological Observations and Measurements.
vi.	Rough Itineraries in the Hindukush.
vii.	A Secret Religion in the Hindukush.
viii.	The Sciences of Language and of Ethnology as illustrated by the Language and Customs of Hunza (a separate Pamphlet).

SPECIMENS OF THE BURISHKI RACE OF HUNZA (ON A SLOPE OF THE PAMIR), OF NAGYR, AND OF YASIN.

MATAVALLI,
the first Hunza man who came to Europe.

SOME BURISHKIS FROM YASIN
separating the Hunza and Nagyri Warriors.

SAYAD ALI,
of Nagyr.

APPENDIX I.
HUNZA, NAGYR, AND THE PAMIR REGIONS.[106]

I wish to record how from small beginnings, owing to carelessness, exclusiveness, and official desire for promotion, Northern India may be lost and British interests in Europe and Asia become subordinate, as they have often been, to Russian guidance; how statesmanship has laboriously invited dangers which physical barriers had almost rendered impossible; and how it may still be practicable to maintain as independent States the numerous mountain strongholds which Nature has interposed between encroachment and intrigue from either the Russian or the English sphere of action in Asia, much to the benefit of these two Powers and of the peace of mankind.

When, after an enormous expenditure of men and money and during campaigns which lasted over thirty-six years, Russia had conquered independent Circassia—a task in which she was largely aided by our preventing provisions and ammunitions from reaching by sea the so-called rebels, although we ourselves were fighting against her in 1856, quorum pars parva fui, it was easy to foresee that our conduct, which some called chivalry, others loyalty, and some duplicity or folly, would give her the present command of the Black Sea and lead to the subjugation of Circassia. The same conduct was repeated at Panjdeh, and may be repeated on the Pamir, much to the personal advantage of the discreet officers concerned. We have also recently discovered that the holding of Constantinople by a neutral Power is not essential to British interests, as we had long ago found out that neither Merv nor Herat were keys to India. Indeed, as we give up position after position, a crop of honours falls to those who bring about our losses and, like charity, covers a multitude of political sins of ignorance or treason.

It seemed, however, that there was one obscure corner which the official sidelight could not irradiate. Valley after valley, plateau after plateau, high mountains and difficult passes separate the populations of India from those of Central Asia. Innumerable languages and warlike races, each unconquerable in their own strongholds if their autonomy and traditions are respected, intervene between invaders from either side who would lead masses of disciplined slaves to slaughter and conquest. It is not necessary to draw an imaginary line on Lord Salisbury’s large or small Map of Asia across mountains and rivers, and dividing arbitrarily tribes and kingdoms whose ancestry is the same, call it “the neutral zone.” No sign-board need indicate “the way to India,” and amid much ado about nothing by ambitious subordinates and puzzled superiors settle to the momentary satisfaction of the British public that Russia can go so far and no farther. Where the cold, the endless marching over inhospitable ground, and starvation do not show the frontier, the sparse population, the unknown tongue, and the bullet of the raider will indicate it sufficiently, without adding to the number of generals or knights for demarcating impossible boundaries.

The reassurances given by Lords Lansdowne and Cross to the native Princes of India indicate the policy that should be adopted with regard to all the Mountain States beyond India proper. It is by everywhere respecting the existing indigenous Oriental Governments that we protect them and ourselves against invasion from without and treachery from within. The loyalty of our feudatories is most chivalrous and touching, but it should be based on enlightened self-interest in order to withstand the utmost strain. The restoration of some powers to the Maharaja of KashmÎr came not a minute too soon. Wherever elsewhere reasonable claims are withheld, they should be generously and speedily conceded. The Indian princes know full well that we are arming them, at their own expense, against a common foe who is not wanting in promises, and who is already posing as a saviour to the people of Raushan, Shignan, Wakhan, Hunza, and even Badakhshan, whose native dynasties or traditions we have either already put aside or are believed to threaten.

As for the small States offering a fruitful field for intrigue, their number and internal jealousies (except against a common foreign invader) are in themselves a greater safeguard than the resistance of a big but straggling ally, whose frontier, when broken through at one of its many weak points, finds an unresisting population from which all initiative has disappeared. The intrigue or treachery of a big ally is also a more serious matter than that of a little State. What does it matter if English and Russian agents intrigue or fraternize among the ovis poli, and the Kirghiz shepherds of the Pamir, or advocate their respective civilizations in Yasin, ChitrÁl, Wakhan, Nagyr, Hunza, etc. Ambitious employes of both empires will always trouble waters, in order to fish in them; but their trouble is comparatively innocuous, and resembles that of Sisyphus when it has to be repeated or wasted in a dozen States, before the real defences of either India or of Russia in Asia are reached. Indeed, so far as India is concerned, the physical difficulties on our side of the Himalayas or of the Hindukush, except at a few easily defensible passes, are insuperable to an invader, even after he has crowned the more approachable heights when coming from the North.

The only policy worthy of the name is to leave the Pamir alone. Whatever line is drawn, it is sure to be encroached upon by either side. Races will be found to overlap it, and in the attempt to gather the fold, as with the Sarik and Salor Turkomans, a second Panjdeh is sure to follow. Intrigues will be active on both sides of the line; and, as in KashmÎr, the worried people will hail the foreigner as a saviour, so long as he has not taken possession, when they find his little finger heavier than the whole body of the indigenous oppressor. I have suffered so much from my persistent exposure of the misrule and intrigues of KashmÎr by those who now hail the fait accompli of its practical annexation, that I may claim to be heard in favour of at least one feature of its former native administration. With bodies of troops averaging from 20 to 200, the late Maharaja, who foresaw what has happened after his death, kept the Hunza-Nagyr frontier in order. It certainly was by rule of thumb, and had no dockets, red tape, and reports. Indeed, his frontier guardians were, as I found them, asleep during a state of siege in 1866, or, when war was over, were engaged in storing grain outside the forts; but peace was kept as it will never be again, in spite of 2,000 Imperial troops, first-rate roads, and suspension bridges over the “Shaitan NarÉ,” instead of the rotten rope-way that spanned “Satan’s Gorge,” or of boats dragged up from Srinagar over the mountains to enable a dozen sepoys to cross the Indus at a time, or to convey couriers with a couple of bullets, some dried butter-cakes, and an open letter or two, who ran the siege at Gilgit and brought such effective reinforcements to its defenders!

Nor has our diplomacy been more effectual than our arms, as the encounter at Chalt with Hunza-Nagyr, hereditary foes, but whom our policy has united against us, has shown. To us Nagyr is decidedly friendly; but a worm will turn if trodden on by some of our too quickly advanced subalterns. That, however, the wise and amiable Chief of Nagyr, a patriarch with a large progeny, and preserving the keenness of youth in his old age, is really friendly to us in spite of provocation, may be inferred from the following letter to me, which does credit alike to his head and heart, and which is far from showing him to be our inveterate foe, as alleged by the Pioneer. His eldest son began to teach me the remarkable KhajunÁ language, which I first committed to writing in 1866, during the siege of Gilgit, and another son continued the lessons in 1886. The latter is a hostage in KashmÎr, to secure the good behaviour of his tribe, which is really infinitely superior in culture and piety to those around them. The father, who is over 90, writes in Persian to the following effect, after the usual compliments:—“The affairs of this place are by your fortune in a fair way, and I am in good health and constantly ask the same for you from the Throne which grants requests. Your kind favour with a drawing of the Mosque has reached me, and has given me much pleasure and satisfaction. The reason of the delay in its receipt and acknowledgment is due to the circumstance that, owing to disturbances (fesÁd) I have not sent agents to KashmÎr this year. After the restoration of peace, I will send [a letter] with them. In the meanwhile, I have caught your hem [seek your protection] for my son Habibullah Khan, a beloved son, about whom I am anxious; the aforesaid son is a well-wisher to the illustrious English Government.—Za’far Khan.” [The letter was apparently written in June last, when The Times reported a “rising,” because the British Agent was at Chalt with 500 men.]

It seems to me that none but a farseeing man could, in the midst of a misunderstanding, if not a fight, with us, so write to one in the enemy’s camp, unless he were a true man alike in war and peace, and a ruler whose good-will was worth acquiring. As for his son, I know him to be indeed well-disposed to our Government. He was very popular among our officers when I saw him in KashmÎr, owing to his modesty, amiability, and unsurpassed excellence at Polo. In fact, my friendship with several of the chiefs since 1866 has aided our good relations with them; and it is a pity if they should be destroyed for want of a little “savoir,” as also “savoir faire,” on our part.

Between the States of Nagyr and Hunza there exists a perpetual feud. They are literally rivals, being separated by a swift-flowing river on which, at almost regulated distances, one Nagyr fort on one bank frowns at the Hunza fort on the other. The paths along the river sides are very steep, involving at times springing from one ledge of a rock to another, or dropping on to it from a height of six feet, when, if the footing is lost, the wild torrent sweeps one away. Colonel Biddulph does not credit the Nagyris with bravery. History, however, does not bear out his statement; and the defeat inflicted on the KashmÎr troops under Nathu Shah in 1848 is a lesson even for the arrogance of a civilized invader armed with the latest rifle. The Nagyris are certainly not without culture; in music they were proficient before the Muhammadan piety of the Shiah sect somewhat tabooed the art. At all events, they are different in character from the Hunzas with whom they share the same language, and their chiefs the same ancestry. The Hunzas, in whom a remnant of the Huns may be found, were great kidnappers; but under KashmÎr influence they stopped raiding since 1869, till the confusion incidental to our interference revived their gone occupation. Indeed, it is asserted on good authority, that even our ally of ChitrÁl, who had somewhat abandoned the practice of selling his Shiah or KalÁsha Kafir subjects into slavery, and who had so disposed of the miners for not working his ruby mines to profit, has now returned to the trade in men, “with the aid of our present of rifles and our moral support.” Nor is Bokhara said to be behind ChitrÁl in the revival of the slave-trade from DarwÁz, in spite of Russian influence; so that we have the remarkable instance of two great Powers both opposed to slavery and the slave-trade, having revived it in their approach to one another. Nor is a third Power, quite blameless in the matter; for when we worried Hunza, that robber-nest remembered its old allegiance to distant KitÁi and arranged with the Chinese authorities at Yarkand to be informed of the departure of a caravan. Then, after intercepting it on the Kulanuldi road, the Hunzas would take those they kidnapped from it back for sale to Yarkand!

As a matter of fact, we have now a scramble for the regions surrounding and extending into the Pamirs by three Powers, acting either directly or through States of Straw. The claims of Bokhara to Karategin and DarwÁz—if not to ShignÁn, Raushan, and Wakhan are as little founded as are those of Afghanistan on the latter three districts. Indeed, even the Afghan right to Badakhshan is very weak. The Russian claims through Khokand on the pasturages of the Kirghiz in two-thirds of the Pamirs are also as fanciful as those of Kashmir or China on Hunza. As in the scramble for Africa, the natives themselves are not consulted, and their indigenous dynasties have been either destroyed, or dispossessed, or ignored.

In an Indian paper, received by to-day’s mail (29 Nov., 1891), I find the following paragraph: “Col. A. G. Durand, British Agent at Gilgit, has received definite orders to bring the robber tribes of Hunza and Nagar under control. These tribes are the pirates of Central Asia, whose chief occupation is plundering caravans on the Yarkand and Kashgar. Any prisoners they take on these expeditions are sold into slavery. Colonel Durand has established an outpost at Chalt, about thirty miles beyond Gilgit, on the Hunza river, and intends making a road to Aliabad, the capital of the Hunza chief, at once. That he will meet with armed opposition in doing so is not improbable.”

For some months past the mot d’ordre appears to have been given to the Anglo-Indian Press, to excite public feeling against Hunza and Nagyr, two States which have been independent for fourteen centuries. The cause of offence is not stated, nor, as far as I know, does one exist of sufficient validity to justify invasion. In the Pioneer and the Civil and Military Gazette I find vague allusions to the disloyalty or recalcitrance of the above-mentioned tribes, and to the necessity of punishing them. As Nagyr is extremely well-disposed towards the British, and is only driven into making common cause with its hereditary foe and rival of Hunza by fear of a common danger,—the loss of their independence,—I venture to point out the impolicy and injustice of interfering with these principalities.

I have already referred to a letter from the venerable chief of Nagyr, in which he strongly commends to my care one of his sons, Raja Habibulla, as a well-wisher of the English Government. Indeed, he has absolutely done nothing to justify any attack on the integrity of his country; and before we invade it other means to secure peace should be tried. I have no doubt that I, for one, could induce him to comply with everything in reason, if reason, and not an excuse for taking his country, is desired. Nagyr has never joined Hunza in kidnapping expeditions, as is alleged in the above-quoted paragraph. Indeed, slavery is an abomination to the pious and peaceful agriculturist of that interesting country. The Nagyris are musical and were fond of dances, polo, ibex battue-hunting, archery and shooting from horseback, and other manly exercises; but the growing piety of the race has latterly proscribed music and dancing. The accompanying drawing of a Nagyri dance in the neighbouring Gilgit gives a good idea of similar performances at Nagyr.

The country is full of legendary lore, but less so than Hunza, where Grimm’s fairy tales appear to be translated into actual life. No war is undertaken except at the supposed command of an unseen fairy, whose drum is on such occasions sounded in the mountains. Ecstatic women, inhaling the smoke of a cedar-branch, announce the future, tell the past, and describe the state of things in neighbouring valleys. They are thus alike the prophets, the historians, and the journalists of the tribe. They probably now tell their indignant hearers how, under the pretext of shooting or of commerce, Europeans have visited their country, which they now threaten to destroy with strange and murderous weapons; but Hunza is “ayeshÓ,” or “heaven-born,” and the fairies, if not the inaccessible nature of the country, will continue to protect it.

The folly of invading Hunza and Nagyr is even greater than the physical obstacles to which I have already referred. Here, between the Russian and the British spheres of influence in Central Asia, we have not only the series of Pamirs, or plateaux and high valleys, which I first brought to notice on linguistic grounds, in the map accompanying my tour in Dardistan in 1866 (the country between Kashmir and Kabul), and which have been recently confirmed topographically; but we have also a large series of mountainous countries, which, if left alone, or only assured of our help against a foreign invader, would guarantee for ever the peace alike of the Russian, the British, and the Chinese frontiers. Unfortunately, we have allowed Afghanistan to annex Badakhshan, Raushan, Shignan, and Wakhan, at much loss of life to their inhabitants; and Russia has similarly endorsed the shadowy and recent claims of Bokhara on neighbouring provinces, like DarwÁz and Karategin.

It is untrue that Hunza and Nagyr were ever tributaries of KashmÎr, except in the sense that they occasionally sent a handful of gold dust to its Maharaja, and received substantial presents in return. It is to China or KitÁi that Hunza considers itself bound by an ancient, but vague, allegiance. Hunza and Nagyr, that will only unite against a foreign common foe, have more than once punished KashmÎr when attempting invasion; but they are not hostile to KashmÎr, and Nagyr even sends one of the princes to Srinagar as a guarantee of its peaceful intentions. At the same time, it is not very many months ago that they gave us trouble at Chalt, when we sought to establish an outpost, threatening the road to Hunza and the independence alike of Hunza and Nagyr.

Just as Nagyr is pious, so Hunza is impious. Its religion is a perversion even of the heterodox MulÁi faith, which is Shiah Muhammadan only in name, but pantheistic in substance. It prevails in PunyÁl, Zebak, DarwÁz, etc. The Tham, or Raja, of Hunza used to dance in a Mosque and hold revels in it. Wine is largely drunk in Hunza, and like the Druses of the Lebanon, the “initiated” MulÁis may consider nothing a crime that is not found out. Indeed, an interesting connection can be established between the doctrines of the so-called “Assassins” of the Crusaders, which have been handed down to the Druses, and those of the MulÁis in various parts of the Hindukush. Their spiritual chief gave me a few pages of their hitherto mysterious Bible, the “KelÁm-i-Pir,” in 1886, which I have translated, and shortly intend to publish. All I can now say is, that, whatever the theory of their faith, the practice depends, as elsewhere, on circumstances and the character of the race.

The language of Hunza and Nagyr solves many philological puzzles. It is a prehistoric remnant, in which a series of simple consonantal or vowel sounds stands for various groups of ideas, relationships, etc. It establishes the great fact, that customs and the historical and other associations of a race are the basis of the so-called rules of grammar. The cradle, therefore, of human thought as expressed in language, whether of the Aryan, the Turanian, or the Shemitic groups, is to be found in the speech of Hunza-Nagyr; and to destroy this by foreign intervention, which has already brought new diseases into the Hindukush, as also a general linguistic deterioration, would be a greater act of barbarism than to permit the continuance of Hunza raiding on the Yarkand road. Besides, that raiding can be stopped again, by closing the slave-markets of Badakhshan, Bokhara, and Yarkand, or by paying a subsidy, say of £1,000 per annum, to the Hunza chief.

Indeed, as has already been pointed out, the recrudescence of kidnapping is largely due to the state of insecurity and confusion caused by our desire to render the Afghan and the Chinese frontiers conterminous with our own, in the vain belief that the outposts of three large and distant kingdoms, acting in concert, will keep Russia more effectively out of India than a number of small independent republics or principalities. Afghanistan may now be big, but every so-called subject in her outlying districts is her inveterate foe. As stated in a letter from Nevsky to the Calcutta Englishman, in connection with Colonel Grambcheffsky’s recent explorations:

“One and all, these devastated tribes are firm in their conviction that the raids of their Afghan enemies were prompted and supported by the gold of Abdur Rahman’s English protectors. They will remember this on the plateau of Pamir, and among the tribes of Kaffiristan.”

However colourable this statement may be as regards ShignÁn, Raushan, and perhaps even Wakhan, I believe that the Kafirs are still our friends. At the same time it should not be forgotten that, owing to the closing of the slave-markets in Central Asia, the sale of Shiah subjects had temporarily stopped in ChitrÁl. The Kafirs were being less molested by kidnapping Muhammadan neighbours; the Hunzas went back to agriculture, which the Nagyris had never abandoned; KashmÎr, India, and the Russian side of Central Asia afforded no opening for the sale of human beings. The insensate ambition of officials, British and Russian, the gift of arms to marauding tribes and the destruction of KashmÎr influence, have changed all this, and it is only by a return to “masterly inactivity,” which does not mean the continuance of the Cimmerian darkness that now exists as to the languages and histories of the most interesting races of the world, that the peace and pockets of three mighty empires can be saved.

In the meanwhile, it is to the interest of Russia to force us into heavy military expenditure by false alarms; to create distrust between ourselves and China by pretending that Russia and England alone have civilizing missions in Central Asia, with which Chinese tyranny would interfere; to hold up before us the Will-o’-the-wisp of an impossible demarcation of the Pamirs, and finally, to ally itself with China against India. For let it not be forgotten, that once the Trans-Siberian railway is completed, China will be like wax in her hand; and that she will be compelled to place her immense material in men and food at the disposal of an overawing, but, as far as the personnel is concerned, not unamiable neighbour. The tribes, emasculated by our overwhelming civilization, and driven into three large camps, will no longer have the power of resistance that they now possess separately.

Let us therefore leave intact the two great belts of territories that Nature has raised for the preservation of peace in Asia—the Pamir with its adjacent regions to the east and west, and the zone of the Hindukush with its hives of independent tribes, intervening between Afghanistan on the one side and KashmÎr on the other, till India proper is reached. This will never be the case by a foreign invader, unless diplomatists “meddle and muddle,” and try to put together what Nature has put asunder. What we require is the cultivation of greater sympathy in our relations with natives; and, comparing big things with small, it is to this feeling that I myself owed my safety, when I put off the disguise in which I crossed the KashmÎr frontier in 1866 into countries then wrongly supposed by our Government to be inhabited by cannibals. This charge was also made, with equal error, by one tribe against the other. Then too, as in 1886, the Indian Press spoke of Russian intrigues; but then, as in 1886, I found the very name of Russia to be unknown, except where it had been learnt from a KashmÎr Munshi, who had no business to be there at all, as the treaty of 1846, by which we sold KashmÎr to Ghulab Singh, assigned the Indus as his boundary on the west. Now, as to the question as to “What and where are the Pamirs?” I have already stated my view in a letter to the Editor of the Morning Post, which I trust I may be allowed to quote:

“As some of the statements made at the Royal Geographical Society are likely to cause a sense of false security, as dangerous to peace as a false alarm, I write to say that ‘Pamirs’ do not mean ‘deserts,’ or ‘broken valleys,’ and that they are not uninhabitable or useless for movements of large bodies of men. They may be all this in certain places, at certain periods of the year, and under certain conditions; but had our explorers or statesmen paid attention to the languages of this part of the world, as they should in regard to every other with which they deal, they would have avoided many idle conjectures and the complications that may follow therefrom. I do not wish them to refer to philologists who have never been to the East, and who interpret ‘Pamir’ as meaning the ‘Upa-Meru’ Mountain of Indian mythology, but to the people who frequent the Pamirs during the summer months, year after year, for purposes of pasturage, starting from various points, and who in their own languages (Yarkandi, Turki, and Kirghiz) call the high plain, elevated valley, table-land, or plateau which they come across ‘Pamir.’ There are, therefore, in one sense many ‘Pamirs,’ and as a tout-ensemble, one ‘Pamir,’ or geographically, the ‘Pamir.’ The legend of the two brothers, ‘Alichur and Pamir,’ is merely a personification of two plateaux. Indeed, the obvious and popular idea which has always attached to the word ‘Pamir,’ is the correct one, whether it is the geographical ‘roof of the world,’ the ‘BÁm-i-dunya’ of the poet, or the ‘Pamir-dunya’ of the modern journalist. We have, therefore, to deal with a series of plateaux, the topographical limits of which coincide with linguistic, ethnographical, and political limits. To the North, the Pamirs have the Trans-Altaic Mountain range marking the Turki element, under Russian influence; the Panja river, by whatever name, on the West is a Tadjik or Iranian Frontier [Affghan]. The Sarikol on the East is a Tibetan, Mongolian, or Chinese Wall, and the South is our natural frontier, the Hindukush, to go beyond which is physical death to the Hindu, and political ruin to the holder of India, as it also is certain destruction to the invader, except by one pass, which I need not name, and which is accessible from a Pamir. That the Pamirs are not uninhabitable may be inferred from Colonel Grambcheffsky’s account [which is published at length elsewhere in this issue of the Asiatic Quarterly Review]. A few passages from it must now suffice:—‘The Pamir is far from being a wilderness. It contains a permanent population, residing in it both summer and winter.’ ‘The population is increasing to a marked extent.’ ‘Slavery on the Pamir is flourishing: moreover, the principal contingents of slaves are obtained from Chatrar, Jasen, and Kanshoot, chanates under the protectorate of England.’ ‘On descending into Pamir we found ourselves between the cordons of the Chinese and Affghan armies.’ ‘The population of Shoognan, numbering 2,000 families, had fled to Pamir, hoping to find a refuge in the Russian Provinces’ (from ‘the untold atrocities which the Affghans were committing in the conquered provinces of Shoognan,’ etc.). ‘I term the whole of the tableland “Pamir,” in view of the resemblance of the valleys to each other.’

“The climate of the Pamirs is variable, from more than tropical heat in the sun to arctic cold in the shade, and in consequence, is alike provocative and destructive of life. Dr. G. Capus, who crossed them from north to south, exactly as Mr. Littledale has done, but several months in the year before him, says in his ‘Observations MÉtÉorologiques sur le Pamir,’ which he sent to the last Oriental Congress,—‘The first general fact is the inconstancy of severe cold. The nights are generally coldest just before sunrise.’ ‘We found an extreme amplitude of 61 deg. between the absolute minimum and maximum, and of 41 deg. between the minimum and the maximum in the shade during the same day.’ ‘The thermometer rises and falls rapidly with the height of the sun.’ ‘Great cold is less frequent and persistent than was believed to be the case at the period of the year dealt with’ (March 13 to April 19), ‘and is compensated by daily intervals of elevation of temperature, which permit animal life, represented by a fairly large number of species, and including man, to keep up throughout the winter under endurable conditions.’ Yet ‘the water-streak of snow, which has melted in contact with a dark object, freezes immediately when put into the shadow of the very same object.’ ... The solution of political difficulties in Central Asia is not in a practically impossible, and certainly unmaintainable, demarcation of the Pamirs, but in the strengthening of the autonomy of the most interesting races that inhabit the series of Circassias that already guard the safety alike of British, Chinese, and of Russian dominion or spheres of influence in Central Asia.”

Woking, Nov. 29.

It is not impossible that the tribes may again combine in 1892 as they did in 1866 to turn out the KashmÎr troops from Gilgit. The want of wisdom shown in forcing on the construction of a road from Chalt to Aliabad, in the centre of Hunza, as announced in to-day’s Times, must bring on, if not a confederation of the tribes against us, at any rate their awakened distrust. It is doubtful whether it was ever expedient to establish an outpost at Gilgit, and the carrying it still farther to the traditional apple of discord, the holding of Chalt, which commands the Hunza road, is still more impolitic. As in Affghanistan, so here, whatever power does not interfere is looked upon as the saviour from present evils. Once we have created big agglomerations under Affghanistan, or China, or Kashmir, we are liable to the dangers following either on collapse, want of cohesion, treachery from within, the ambitions of a few men at the respective courts, or, as with us, to serious fluctuations in foreign politics due to the tactics of English parties. The change, therefore, from natural boundaries to the wirepulling of diplomatists at Kabul, Peking, or Downing Street is not in the interests of peace, of our empire, or of civilization. Besides, it should not be forgotten that we have added an element of disturbance, far more subtle than the Babu, to our frontier difficulties. The timid KashmÎri is unsurpassed as an intriguer and adventurer among tribes beyond his frontier. The time seems to have arrived when, in the words of the well-known Persian proverb,[107] the sparseness of races round the Pamirs should bid us to be on our guard against the Affghan, the “bad-raced” KashmÎrÎ, and the KambÓ (supposed to be the tribe on the banks of the Jhelum beyond Mozaffarabad). Perhaps, however, the KambÓ is the Heathen Chinee; and the proverb would then be entirely applicable to the present question. After the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, Russia will be able to exert the greatest pressure on China. The Russian strength at Vladivostok is already enormous, and when the time comes she can hurl an overwhelming force on what remains of Chinese Manchuria, before which Chinese resistance will melt like snow. Peking and the north of China are thus quite at the mercy of Russia. She will find there the most populous country of those she rules in Asia, and with ample supplies. China has a splendid raw material, militarily speaking; and Russia could there form the biggest army that has ever been seen in Asia, to hold in terrorem over a rival or to hurl at the possessions of a foe.

It is against such possibilities that the maintenance of “masterly inactivity,” qualified by the moral and, if need be, pecuniary or other material support of the Anglo-Indian Government is needed. This is the object of this paper, before I enter into the more agreeable task of describing the languages, customs, and country of perhaps the most interesting races that inhabit the globe.

The Times of the 30th November publishes a map of the Pamirs and an account of the questions connected with them that, like many other statements in its articles on “Indian affairs,” are incorrect and misleading. Having been on a special mission by the Panjab Government, in 1866, when I discovered the races and languages of “Dardistan,” and gave the country that name, and again having been on special duty with the Foreign Department of the Government of India in 1886 in connection with the Boorishki language and race of Hunza, Nagyr, and a part of Yasin, regarding which I have recently completed Part I. of a large work, I may claim to speak with some authority as regards these districts, even if I had no other claim. The point which I wish to specially contradict at present, is the one relating to the Russians bringing themselves into almost direct contact with “the Hunza and other tribes subject to KashmÎr and, as such, entitled to British protection and under British control.”

Dr. Leitner as a Bukhara Maulvi, when crossing the Frontier in 1866 during the KashmÎr War with the Dard Tribes.

When I crossed the then KashmÎr frontier in 1866, in the disguise of a Bokhara Maulvi, armed with a testimonial of Muhammadan theological learning, I found that the tribes of Hunza, Nagyr, Dareyl, Yasin, and ChitrÁl had united under the leadership of the last-named to expel the KashmÎr invaders from the Gilgit Fort. My mission was a purely linguistic one; but the sight of dying and dead men along the road, that of heads stuck up along the march of the KashmÎr troops, and the attempts made on my life by our feudatory, the late Maharaja of KashmÎr, compelled me to pay attention to other matters besides the languages, legends, songs, and fables of the interesting races with whom I now came in contact under circumstances that might not seem to be favourable to the accomplishment of my task. I had been warned by the then Lieutenant-Governor of the Panjab, Sir Donald McLeod, whose like we have not seen again, not to cross the frontier, as the tribes beyond were supposed to be cannibals; but as I could not get the information of which I was in search within our frontier, I had to cross it. My followers were frightened off by all sorts of wild stories, till our party was reduced from some fifty to three, including myself. The reason for all this was, that the Maharaja was afraid that I should find out and report his breach of the Treaty by which we sold KashmÎr to him in 1846, and in which the Indus is laid down as his boundary on the west. In 1866, therefore, at any rate, even the tenure of Gilgit, which is on the other side of the Indus, was contested and illegal, whilst the still more distant Hunza and Nagyr had more than once inflicted serious punishment on the KashmÎr troops that sought to invade districts that have preserved their autonomy during the last fourteen centuries, as was admitted by The Times of the 2nd November, 1891, before its present change with the times, if an unintentional pun may be permitted.

Then, as ever, the Anglo-Indian newspapers spoke of Russian intrigues in those regions. I am perfectly certain that if, instead of the fussiness of our statesmen and the sensationalism of our journals, the languages, history, and relations of these little-known races had been studied by them, we should never have heard of Russia in that part of the East. It is also not by disingenuousness and short cuts on maps or in diplomacy, but by knowledge, that physical, ethnographical, and political problems are to be solved; nor will the bold and brilliant robberies of Russia be checked by our handing over the inhabitants of the supposed “cradle of the human race” to Affghan, KashmÎr, or Chinese usurpations. Above all, it is a loss of time to palm off myths as history in order to suit the policy or conceal the ignorance of the moment.

Just as little as Darwaz and Karategin are ancestral dominions of Bokhara, and, therefore, under Russian influence, so little did even Badakhshan, and much less so, Raushan, Shignan, and Wakhan, ever really belong to Affghanistan. As for the Chinese hold on Turkistan, we ourselves denied it when we coquetted with Yakub Khush Begi, though KitÁi was ever the acknowledged superior of Eastern Turkistan. If Hunza admits any allegiance, it is to China, and not to KashmÎr; and the designations of offices of rule in that country are of Chinese, and not of Aryan origin, including even “ThÀm,” the title of its Raja.

As a matter of fact, however, the vast number of tribes that inhabit the many countries between the Indus and the Kuner own no master except their own tribal head or the tribal council. From kidnapping Hunza, where the right to plunder is monarchical, hereditary, and “ayeshÓ” = “heaven-born,” to the peace and learning of republican KandiÁ or GabriÁl, all want to be left alone. If a neighbour becomes troublesome, he is raided on till an interchange of presents restores harmony. It is impossible to say that either side is tributary to the other. The wealthier gives the larger present; the bigger is considered the superior in a general sort of way, and so two horses, two dogs, and a handful of gold dust are yearly sent by Hunza to KashmÎr or to Yarkand as a cloak for much more substantial exactions in return. Nagyr sends a basket of apricots instead of the horses and dogs. In 1871 ChitrÁl still paid a tribute to Badakhshan in slaves, but it would be absurd to infer from this fact that ChitrÁl ever acknowledged the suzerainty of Jehandar Shah, or of the Affghan faction that dispossessed him. Nor were the Khaibaris, or other highway robbers, our rulers, because we paid them blackmail, or they our subjects because they might bring us “sweetmeats.”

The points in which most Englishmen are as deficient as Russians are generally proficient, are language and a sympathetic manner with natives. That, however, linguistic knowledge is not useless may be inferred from the fact that it enabled me, to use the words of my Chief, Commissary General H. S. Jones, C.B., during the Russian War in 1855, “to pass unharmed through regions previously unknown and among tribes hitherto unvisited by any European.”

Also in topography and geography linguistics are necessary; and the absurd mistakes now made at certain learned societies and in certain scientific journals, regarding the Pamirs, would be avoided by a little study of the Oriental languages concerned. In 1866, the map which accompanies my philological work on “Dardistan” shows, on linguistic grounds, and on the basis of native itineraries, the various Pamirs that have been partially revealed within the last few weeks, or have been laboriously ascertained by expensive Russian and British expeditions between 1867 and 1890. The publication of my material, collected at my own expense and which shall no longer be delayed, would have saved many complications; but when, e.g., I pointed out, in 1866, that the Indus, after leaving Bunji, ran west instead of south, as on the then existing maps, I got into trouble with the Topographical Survey, which “discovered” the fact through its well-known “Mulla” in 1876. The salvation of India that is not made “departmentally” is crucified; and whoever does not belong to the regular military or civil services has no business to know or to suggest. Mr. Curzon, when presiding at a meeting of the late Oriental Congress, assured us that a new era had risen; but only the other night, at the Royal Geographical Society, a complaint was made of the reluctance of official departments in giving the Society information. As a rule, the mysteriousness of offices only conceals their ignorance, of which we have an instance in Capt. Younghusband being sent to shut the passes after the Russians had already stolen a march on, or through, them.

The neutralization of the Pamirs is the only solution of a difficulty created by the conjectural treaties of diplomatists and the ambition of military emissaries. Left as a huge happy hunting-ground for sportsmen, or as pasturage for nomads from whatever quarter, the Pamirs form the most perfect “neutral zone” conceivable. That the wanderings of these nomads should be accompanied by territorial or political claims, whether by Russia, China, Affghanistan, Kashmir, or ourselves, is the height of absurdity. As for Hunza-Nagyr, the sooner they are left to themselves the better for us, who are not bound to help KashmÎr in encroaching on them. KashmÎr managed them very fairly after 1848; and when it was occasionally defeated, its prestige did not suffer, for the next summer invariably found the tribal envoys again suing for peace and presents. The sooner the Gilgit Agency is withdrawn, the greater will be our reputation for fair dealing. Besides, we can take hostages from the Chiefs’ families as guarantees of future tranquillity. Hunza-Nagyr are certainly not favourable to Russia, whilst Nagyr is decidedly friendly to us. The sensational account of Colonel Grambcheffsky’s visit to Hunza, which he places on his map where Nagyr is, seems to be one of the usual traps to involve us in great military expenditure and to alienate the tribes from us. It is also not creditable that, for party or personal purposes, the peaceful and pious Nagyris,—whom our own Gilgit Resident, Colonel Biddulph, has reported on as distinguished for “timidity and incapacity for war,” “never having joined the Hunza raids,” “slavery being unknown in Nagyr,”—should be described as “kidnappers,” “raiders along with Hunza,” “slave-dealers,” “robbers,” and “scoundrels,”—statements made by a correspondent from Gilgit in a morning newspaper of to-day, and to all of which I give an unqualified contradiction.

The establishment of the Gilgit Agency has already drawn attention to the shortest road for the invasion of India; and it is significant that its advocate at Gilgit should admit that all the tribes of the Indus Valley “sympathized with the Hunzas,” from whose depredations they are erroneously supposed to have suffered, and that they were likely “to attack the British from behind by a descent on the Gilgit road” to KashmÎr. Why should “the only other exit from Gilgit by way of the Indus Valley be through territories held by tribes hostile to the British”? Have the Gilgit doings already alienated the poor, but puritanical ChilÁsis, tributaries of KashmÎr, who adjoin our settled British district of Kaghan? Are we to dread the Republic of Muhammadan learning, KandiÁ, that has not a single fort; pastoral Dareyl; the Koli-Palus traders; agricultural Tangir, and other little Republics—one only of eleven houses? As for the places beyond them, our officials at Attock, Peshawur, Rawalpindi, and Abbottabad will deal with the Pathan tribes in their own neighbourhood, which have nothing to do with the adjoining Republics of quiet, brave, and intelligent Dards, on both sides of the Indus, up to Gilgit, to which I have referred, and which deserve our respectful study, sympathy, and unobtrusive support.

G. W. Leitner.

16th December, 1891.

The following account, published by Reuter’s Telegram Company, will supplement the preceding article:—

“Woking, Dec. 13.

“A representative of Reuter’s Agency interviewed Dr. Leitner at his residence at Woking to-day, with the object of eliciting some information on the subject of the Hunza and Nagyr tribes, with whom the British forces are at present in conflict.

“Dr. Leitner, it is needless to say, is the well-known discoverer of the races and languages of Dardistan (the country between Kabul and Kashmir), which he so named when sent on a linguistic mission by the Punjab Government in 1864, at a time when the various independent tribes, including Hunza and Nagyr, had united in order to turn the troops of the Maharaja of Kashmir out of Gilgit. At that time it was considered that the treaty of 1846, by which Great Britain sold Kashmir to the Maharaja, had confined him to the Indus as his westward boundary, and had therefore rendered his occupation of Gilgit an encroachment and breach of treaty.

“Dr. Leitner, although the country was in a state of war, which is not favourable to scientific research, managed to collect a mass of information, and a fine ethnographical collection, which is at the museum at Woking. He has also made many friends in the country, and is doubtless the highest, if not the only, authority regarding these countries.

“Dr. Leitner, who was quite unprepared for to-day’s visit, said that the relations which he had kept up with the natives of Gilgit, Hunza, Nagyr, and Yasin forced him to the conclusion that a conflict had been entered into which might have easily been avoided by a little more sympathy and knowledge, especially of the Nagyr people. Indeed, it was not a light matter that could have induced the venerable chief of Nagyr to make common cause with his hereditary foe of Hunza, unless he feared that the British threatened their respective independence.

“Not many weeks ago Dr. Leitner received a letter from the chief of Nagyr, in which he recommended to his kind attention his son, now in Kashmir, on the ground that he, even more so than any other member of his numerous family, was a well-wisher to the British Government. At that time the chief could not have had any feelings of animosity, although he might have protested, together with his rival of Hunza, against the British occupation of Chalt. In fact, it was not true that Nagyr and Hunza were really subject to Kashmir, except in the vague way in which these States constantly recognised the suzerainty of a neighbouring power in the hope of getting substantial presents for their offerings of a few ounces of gold dust, a couple of dogs, or basket of apricots, etc. Thus ChitrÁl, the ally of Great Britain, used to pay a tribute of slaves to the Ameers of Badakshan; but it would be absurd on that ground to render ChitrÁl a part of Afghanistan, because Badakshan now, in a manner, belongs to Abdurrahman. Hunza, again, sends a tribute to China; and, in a general way, China is the only Power that ever had a shadow of claim on these countries, but it is a mere shadow. Dr. Leitner said, the only policy for Great Britain is, in the words of the Secretary of State or Viceroy, ‘to maintain and strengthen all the indigenous Governments.’ This policy he would extend to the triangle which has Peshawur for its base, and thereby interpose a series of almost impregnable mountainous countries, which would be sufficiently defended by the independence of their inhabitants. If Circassia could oppose Russia for thirty years, even although Russia had the command of the Black Sea, how much more effective would be the resistance of the innumerable Circassias which Providence had placed between ourselves and the Russian frontier in Asia? We ought to have made these tribes look upon us as a distant but powerful friend, ready to help them in an emergency; but now, by attacking two of them, we caused Russia to be looked upon as the coming Saviour; indeed, the people of Wakhan, on the Pamir side of Hunza, were already doing so, whilst Shignan and Roshan, which had been almost depopulated by our friends, the Afghans, had already begun to emigrate into Russian territory. Here Dr. Leitner added that the Russian claims through Bokhara were as illusory as those of Kashmir, and historically even less founded than those of China. Indeed, no one had a right to these countries except the indigenous peoples and chiefs who inhabited them; and in this scramble for the regions round the Pamir, great Britain was simply breaking down her natural defences by stamping out the independence of native tribes and making military roads; for it was the absence of those roads on the British side that rendered it impossible to an invader to do England any real harm or to advance on India proper.

Asked why the trouble had broken out at the present time, Dr. Leitner said, that he had been kept without information of the immediate cause, but he felt certain that it was owing to the attempt to construct a military road to Hunza, whereby England would only facilitate the advent of a possible invader from that direction, besides making Hunza throw in its lot with that invader. It was perfectly untrue, as alleged in some of the Indian papers, that the Nagyris were kidnappers, and that our attack would be an advantage to the cause of anti-slavery. The fact was just the other way. Kidnapping had been stopped in 1869 as far as Hunza was concerned.

The Nagyris never raided at all; ChitrÁl also gave up selling its KÁfir or Shiah subjects into slavery when the markets of Badakshan were closed; but now that confusion had caused the English and Russian advance, Hunza had again taken to raiding, and ChitrÁl to selling slaves. As for Nagyr, the case was quite different; they were an excellent people and very quiet, so much so that Colonel Biddulph, the Resident, described them as “noted for timidity and incapacity for war,” whereas in his “Tribes of the Hindu Kush” he also states that the people of Hunza are not warlike in the sense in which the Afghans are said to be so. No doubt the Nagyris dislike war, but would fight bravely if driven to do so. Colonel Biddulph adds: “They are settled agricultural communities, proud of the independence they have always maintained for fourteen centuries, hemmed in by lofty mountains, and living under rulers who boast of long, unbroken descent from princes of native blood.” He also bears testimony to the fact that “the Nagyr people were never concerned in these raids, and slavery does not exist among them.” At the same time Dr. Leitner fully admitted that the Hunza people were not a model race, since they used to be desperate raiders and kidnappers, and very immoral and impious. The father of the present king used to dance in a state of drunkenness in the mosque; but, on the other hand, we were not bound to be the reformers of Hunza by pulling down one of the bulwarks to our Indian Empire. Hunza was a picturesque country in every sense; it was nominally governed by fairies: ecstatic women were the prophetesses of the tribe, recounted its past glories, and told what was going on in the neighbouring valleys, so they were its historians and journalists as well as its prophetesses. No war was undertaken unless the fairies gave their consent, and the chief fairy, Yudeni, who protects the “Tham” (a Chinese title), has no doubt already struck the sacred drum in order to call the men of the country to defend the “Heaven-born,” as their chief is called. The two “Thams” of Hunza and Nagyr, who have a common ancestry, are also credited with the power of causing rain, and there would certainly appear to be some foundation for this remarkable fact.

The two tribes are great polo players; archery on horseback is common amongst them; and they are very fair ibex hunters.

The people of Nagyr are as pious and gentle as those of Hunza are the contrary. Their language went back to simple sounds as indicative of a series of human relations or experiences, and clearly showed that the customs and associations of a race were at the basis of so-called rules of grammar. Nothing more wonderful than their language could be conceived; it went to the root of human thought as expressed in language, but the language had already suffered by foreign influences between 1866, when one son of the Rajah of Nagyr taught him, and 1886, when another son of the Rajah continued his lessons.

As regards religion, the Hunzas are Mulais, a mysterious and heretical sect, akin to the Druses of the Lebanon, practising curious rites, and practically infidels. He had obtained a few pages of their secret Bible, the Kelam-i-pir, which throws much light on the doctrines of the so-called “assassins” during the Crusades. The Nagyris are pious Muhammadans of the Shiah denomination.

Dr. Leitner then showed the map accompanying his linguistic work on Dardistan. After comparing it with the most recent Russian and British maps, that of Dr. Leitner gives the fullest and clearest information, not only as regards Hunza-Nagyr, where all the places where fighting has occurred are marked, but also as regards the various Pamirs, thus anticipating in 1866 on linguistic grounds and native itineraries the different Pamirs that have recently been settled geographically. It shows that the ethnographical frontier of the Pamirs to the north are the Turki-speaking nomads of the trans-Altaic range (now Russian); to the west the Persian, or Tajiks (now Afghan); to the south the Aryan Hindu Kush [British]; and to the east the wall of the Serikol Mountains, dividing or admitting Chinese, Tibetan, or Mongolian influence. The indeterminate river courses through the Pamir, or a line stretched across its plateaux, valleys, and mountains, are obviously an unmaintainable demarcation, which is liable to be transgressed by shepherds under whatever rule; but the whole of the Pamirs together, as a huge and happy hunting-ground, are, no doubt, if neutralized by the three Powers concerned, the best possible frontier, as “no man’s land,” and a perfect neutral zone. “What matter,” continued Dr. Leitner, “if the passes are easy of access on the Russian side, it is on the descent, and on the ascent on our side that almost insuperable difficulties begin. Where we are now fighting in Hunza-Nagyr only the low state of the river which divides Hunza from Nagyr enables us to make a simultaneous advance on both. Otherwise we should have to let ourselves man by man down from one ledge of rock to another, and if we miss our footing be whirled away in the most terrible torrent the imagination can conceive. Why, then, destroy such a great defence in our favour if Hunza is kept friendly, as it so easily can be, especially with the pressure exercised on it by the Nagyris, whose forts frown on those of Hunza all down the river that separates their countries? I cannot conceive anything more wanton or suicidal than the present advance even if we should succeed in removing one of the most important landmarks in the history of the human race by shooting down the handful of Nagyris and Hunzas that oppose us. They preserve the pre-historic remnants of legends and customs that explain much that is still obscure in the life and history of European races. A few hundred pounds a year judiciously spent and the promise of the withdrawal of the Gilgit Agency, which was already once before attacked when under Colonel Biddulph, would be a far better way of securing peace than shooting down with Gatlings and Martini-Henry rifles people who defend their independence within their crags with bows, arrows, battleaxes, and a few muskets; and promise of the withdrawal of the Gilgit Agency might be contingent upon the increase of the number of hostages belonging to the chiefs’ families that are now annually sent to Kashmir as a guarantee of friendly relations.

The Hunzas and Nagyris are not to be despised as foes; they are very good marksmen. In 1886, when the Kashmir troops thought they had cleared the plain before the Gilgit Fort entirely of enemies, and not a person was to be seen outside it, the tribesmen would glide along the ground unperceived behind a stone pushed in front of them, and resting their old flint muskets on them shoot off the Maharajah’s Sepoys whenever they showed themselves outside the fort. Indeed, it was this circumstance that induced Dr. Leitner to abandon the protection of the fort and make friends with the tribesmen outside. All the tribes desired was to be left alone in their mountain fastnesses. They had sometimes internecine feuds, but would unite against the common foe. It was merely emasculating their powers of resistance to subject them, either on the one side to Bokhara, which meant Russia, or to Afghanistan or Kashmir, which meant Great Britain, or to China, which meant dependence on a Power that might be utilized any day against Great Britain after the completion of the trans-Siberian railway. Diplomatists, frontier delimitation commissions, and officers, both British and Russian, anxious for promotion, had, continued Dr. Leitner, created the present confusion; and it was now high time to rely rather on the physical obstacles that guaranteed the safety alike of the British, Russian, and Chinese frontiers than on the chapter of political accidents.

Dr. Leitner, who is going to give a lecture at the Westminster Town-hall to-morrow afternoon on “The Races, Religions, and Politics of the Pamir Regions,” then showed our representative Col. Grambcheffsky’s map, which put Hunza where Nagyr ought to be, and ignored the latter place altogether, just as did the last map of the Geographical Society in connection with Mr. Littledale’s tour. Grambcheffsky’s map, however, had since been corrected by evidently an English map, and it was strange that Russians had easier access to English maps than Englishmen themselves. In fact, all this secrecy, Dr. Leitner maintained, was injurious to the acquisition of full knowledge regarding imperfectly known regions. Attention was then directed to a number of maps, that of Mr. Drew, a Kashmir official, showing Hunza-Nagyr to be beyond Kashmir influence. This was practically confirmed by several official maps and the statements of Colonels Biddulph and Hayward, the latter of whom placed the Kashmir frontier towards Hunza at Nomal, whilst the British are now fighting sixteen and a half miles beyond in front of Mayun, where the first Hunza fort is. The Nagyr frontier Dr. Leitner places at Jaglot, which is nineteen miles from Nilt, where we are simultaneously fighting the first Nagyr fort.

Dr. Leitner, in conclusion, expressed his conviction, from his knowledge of the people concerned, that any one with a sympathetic mind could get them to do anything in reason; but that encroachments, whether overt or covert, would be resisted to the utmost. Indeed, England’s restlessness had brought on the present trouble.

In 1866, he stated, the very name of Russia was unknown in these parts, and in 1886 was only known to a few. Yet the English Press in both these years spoke of Russian intrigues among the tribes. He did not fear them as long as the Indian Empire relied on its natural defences, its inner strength, and on justice to its chiefs and people, and as long as its policy with the tribes was guided by knowledge and good feeling.

APPENDIX II.
NOTES ON RECENT EVENTS IN CHILÁS AND CHITRÁL.

In 1866 I was sent by the Punjab Government on a linguistic mission to Kashmir and ChilÁs at the instance of the Bengal Asiatic Society and on the motion of the late Sir George Campbell, who hoped to identify KailÁs or the Indian Olympus with ChilÁs.[108] Although unable to support that conjecture, I collected material which was published in Part I. of my “Dardistan” and which the Government declared “as throwing very considerable and important light on matters heretofore veiled in great obscurity.” That some obscurity still exists, is evident from the Times telegram of to-day (5th December, 1892), in which an item of news from the Tak [Takk] valley is described as coming from ChitrÁl, a distant country with which ChilÁs has nothing to do. The Takk village is fortified, and through the valley is the shortest and easiest road to our British district of KaghÁn. It is alleged that some headmen of Takk wished to see Dr. Robertson at Gilgit, who thereupon sent a raft to bring them, but the raft was fired on and Capt. Wallace, who went to its assistance, was wounded. [ChilÁs is on the Kashmir side of the Indus, and the Gilgit territory is reached by crossing the Indus at Bunji.]

The incident is ascribed either to “the treachery of the men who professed willingness to come in” or to the mischievousness of “other persons.” It is probable from this suggestion of treachery and the unconscious use of the words “to come in,” which is the Anglo-Indian equivalent for “surrender,” that the headmen of Takk were not willing to make over their Fort to the British or to open the road to Gilgit. The Takk incident, therefore, is not a part of the so-called “ChitrÁl usurpation,” under which heading it immediately appears, but is a part of our usurpation on the tribes inhabiting the banks of the Indus. In 1843, these tribes inflicted a severe loss on the Sikh invaders, and in my “history of the wars with Kashmir” the part taken by the manly defenders of Takk, now reduced from 131 to some 90 houses, is given in detail. It seems to me that as the Gilgit force was unable to support “the ChitrÁl usurpation” of our protÉgÉ, Afzul-ul-Mulk, owing to his being killed by his uncle Sher Afzul, it is to be employed to coerce the Indus tribes to open out a road which ought never to have been withdrawn from their hold. About 50 years ago the Takk men were stirred into so-called rebellion by Kashmir agents in order to justify annexation. It is to be hoped that history will not repeat itself, or that, at any rate, the next 50 years will see the Indus tribes as independent and peaceful as they have been since 1856, especially in ChilÁs (before 1892), and as mysterious as Hunza ought to have remained till our unnecessary attack on that country caused practically unknown Russia to be looked upon as the Saviour of Nations “rightly struggling to be free” (see Baron Vrevsky’s reply to the Hunza deputation). Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat; and no greater instance of folly can be conceived, than the construction of a military road through countries in which the chamois is often puzzled for its way. Nor was the attention of the Russians drawn to them before we made our own encroachments.

As for the Pamirs, whatever may be the present interpretation of Prince Gortchakoff’s Convention, the Russians were unwilling to let political consequences or limits accompany the erratic wanderings of Kirghiz sheep in search of pasturage in that region. Prince Gortchakoff’s advocacy of a Neutral Zone and of the autonomy of certain tribes was justified by the facts (which he, however, rather guessed than knew) and was worthy alike of that Diplomatist and of our acceptance in the interests of India and of peace. The incorporation of certain Districts in the domain, or under the sphere of influence, of Afghanistan, was distasteful to tribes attached to their hereditary rulers or to republican institutions and was not too willingly accepted by the Amir of Afghanistan, who now expects us to defend the white Elephants that we have given him better than we did Panjdeh. Some MulÁis that had fled from Russian tyranny to Afghan territory assured me that “the finger of an Afghan was more oppressive than the whole Russian army.” Indeed, so far as Central Asia is concerned, Russia, with the exception of certain massacres, has hitherto behaved, on the whole, as a great civilizing power.[109]

As for Sirdar NizÁm-ul-Mulk, this is his name and not his title. He is the “Mihtar” or “Prince” NizÁm-ul-Mulk, and neither an Indian “SirdÁr” nor a “NizÁm.” He is also the “Badshah” of Turikoh, this being the district assigned to him in his father’s lifetime as the heir-apparent. He was snubbed by us for offering to relieve that excellent officer, Col. Lockhart, when a prisoner in Wakhan! He has written to me from Turikoh for “English phrases and words with their Persian equivalents as a pleasure and a requirement.” This does not look like hostility to the British. He spoke to me in 1886 of his brother Afzul’s bravery with affection and pride, though he has ever maintained his own acknowledged right as the successor of his father AmÁn-ul-Mulk. If he has been alienated from us or has ever been tempted to throw himself into the arms of Russia, it has most assuredly been our fault. Besides, just as we have abandoned the Shiah Hazaras, our true friends during the late Afghan War, to be destroyed by their religious and political foe, the Sunni Amir Abdurrahman, so have the Amir Sher Ali and the Tham of Hunza, Safdar Ali Khan, rued their trust in Russian Agents. I regret, therefore, to find in the Times telegram of to-day that “the NizÁm” “is acting without the support of the British Agent” “who has not interfered,” when he had already interfered in favour of the usurper Afzul-ul-Mulk.

As for the connivance of Amir Abdurrahman, my “rough history of Dardistan from 1800 to 1872” shows that, in one sense, ChitrÁl is tributary to BadakhshÁn and as we have assigned BadakhshÁn to the Amir, he, no doubt, takes an interest in ChitrÁl affairs. I believe, however, that interest to be somewhat platonic, and he knows that his friend JehandÁr Shah (the late wrongfully deposed hereditary ruler of BadakhshÁn) never paid any tribute to Afghanistan. But ChitrÁl once also paid tribute to DÎr, with whose able Chief, Rahmat-ullah-Khan, “the NizÁm” is connected by marriage. ChitrÁl on the other hand has received a subsidy from Kashmir since 1877, but this was as much a tribute from Kashmir to Aman-ul-Mulk, as a sign of his subjection to Kashmir, for shortly after he made offers of allegiance to Kabul. With all alike it is

“The good old rule, the simple plan,

That they should take who have the power

And they should keep who can.”

It is misleading to speak of their relations to neighbouring States as “tributary.” Are the Khyberis tributary to us or we to them, because we pay them a tribute to let our merchants travel through their Pass? Have we never ourselves come, first as suppliants, then as merchants, then as guests, then as advisers, then as protectors, and, finally, as conquerors?

The procedure of Afghanistan, of ChitrÁl, of Kashmir, and of our own is very much alike and so are the several radii of influence of the various factors in “the question.” We have our fringe of independent frontier tribes with whom we flirt, or wage war, as suits the convenience of the moment. Afghanistan has a similar fringe of independent Ishmaelites round it and even through it, whose hands are against everybody and everybody’s hands against them. ChitrÁl is threatened all along its line by the Kafirs, who even make a part of BadakhshÁn insecure, but are nevertheless our very good friends. Kashmir has its fringe on its extreme border, especially since, in violation of our treaty of 1846, it has attacked countries beyond the Indus on the west, including the KunjÛtis of Hunza, who resumed their raiding—which had ceased in 1867—during and after Col. Lockhart’s visit in 1886. Yet there can be little doubt about “the loyalty” of those concerned. The Amirs of Afghanistan consider themselves “shields of India,” as I have heard two of them say, and so did our Ally of Kashmir, who ought never to have been reduced to a subordinate feudatory position. What wonder then that old AmÁn-ul-Mulk of ChitrÁl should also have tried to become a buffer between Afghanistan on the West, Kashmir on the East, India on the South and, latterly, Russia in the North, if indeed the whole story of Russian intrigue in ChitrÁl be at all truer than a similar mare’s nest which we discovered in Hunza? It is the policy of Russia to create false alarms and thereby to involve us in expenditure, whilst standing by and posing as the future saviour of the tribes. Our tendency to compromises and subservient Commissions of delimitation and to “scuttling” occasionally, is also well known and so we are offered in Russian papers “an Anglo-Russian understanding on the subject of ChitrÁl,” as if ChitrÁl was not altogether out of the sphere of Russia’s legitimate influence! It is also amusing to find in the Novosti that Russia’s sole desire is “to prevent Afghanistan from falling into British hands.” We are already spending at Gilgit on food etc. for our troops more in one year than were spent in the 40 years of the so-called mismanagement of Kashmir, which I myself steadily exposed, but which kept the frontier far more quiet than it has been since the revival of the Gilgit Agency. There is every prospect now of heavier and continued expenditure as the policy of the Foreign Department of the Government of India develops. On that policy a veto should at once be put by the British Parliament and public, if our present Liberal Administration cannot do so without pressure from without. We should conciliate Nizam-ul-Mulk before it is too late. He is connected with Umra Khan of JandÔl and with the influential Mullah Shahu of Bajaur through his maternal uncle, Kokhan Beg. He has also connections in Badakhshan, Hunza and DÎr, as already stated. Indeed, we ought to have given him our support from the beginning. I doubt whether it would be desirable to subdivide ChitrÁl as stated in to-day’s Times, letting Sher Afzul keep ChitrÁl proper, giving Yasin to “the NizÁm” and letting Umra Khan retain what he has already seized of Southern ChitrÁl. As for Sher Afzul, I believe, that he is also “loyal.”

As for Hunza, I am not at all certain that the fugitive, Safdar Ali Khan, really murdered his father. At all events when the deed was committed, I find that it was attributed to Muhammad Khan,[110] probably not the present Mir Muhammad Nazim who has acknowledged the suzerainty of England (through Kashmir) and of China. The latter power has always had something to say to Hunza, and the very title of its Chief “Tham” is of Chinese origin. The subsidy that China used to pay for keeping open the commercial road from Badakhshan and Wakhan through the Pamirs along KunjÛt (Hunza) to Yarkand, was about £380 per annum, and this sum was divided between four States and ensured the immunity of the route from raids.[111] I doubt whether in future £380 a year on Hunza alone will enable us to keep it quiet, and I am sure that the lofty superciliousness with which Chinese officials discuss the Pamir question, as something that scarcely concerns them, is no evidence of that pertinacious power abandoning claims to a suzerainty in those regions which are historically founded, although their exercise has been more by an appeal to imagination of the glorious and invincible, if distant, “KhitÁi,” than by actual interference.

Indeed, it is China alone that has a grievance—against Russia for the occupation of the Alichur Pamir—against Afghanistan for expelling her troops from Somatash (of subsequent Yanoff fame)—and against England for encroaching on her ancient feudatory of Hunza, whose services in suppressing the Khoja rebellion in 1847 are commemorated in a tablet on one of the gates of Yarkand.

H. H. Mihtar Nizam-ul-Mulk and his late Yasin Council.

Chitrali Musicians and the Badakshi Poet, Taighun Shah.

Note.—We add a reproduction of the photographs of the Mihtar and Badshah Nizam-ul-Mulk, sitting in Council with his uncle, Bahadur Khan, now at Gilgit, where he represented Afzul-ul-Mulk. On the Nizam’s left is his foster-uncle, Maimun Shah, whilst behind him stand our Indian Agent, WafadÁr Khan and a ChitrÁli office-holder, WazÎr Khan, of corresponding rank. We also give the portrait of the ChitrÁl Court poet and musician, the celebrated TaighÛn Shah, one of whose songs, with its notation, was published in our issue of the 1st of January, 1891. He is seated with the two flute-players who always precede the King of ChitrÁl when on a tour.

Although the period may be past in which a great English Journal could ask, “what is Gilgit?” the contradictory telegrams and newspaper accounts which we receive regarding the countries adjoining Gilgit show that the Press has still much to learn. Names of places, as far apart as Edinburgh and London, are put within a day’s march on foot. Names of men figure on maps as places and the relationships of the Chiefs of the region in question are invented or confounded as may suit the politics of the moment, if not the capacity of the printer. The injunctions of the Decalogue are applied or misapplied, extended or curtailed, to suit immediate convenience, and a different standard of morality is constantly being found for our friends of to-day or our foes of to-morrow. The youth Afzul-ul-Mulk was credited with all human virtues and with even more than British manliness, as he was supposed to be friendly to us. He had given his country into our hands in order to receive our support against his elder brother, the acknowledged heir of the late Aman-ul-Mulk of ChitrÁl, but that elder brother, NizÁm-ul-Mulk, was no less friendly to English interests, although he has the advantage of being a man of capacity and independence. The sudden death of Aman-ul-Mulk coincided with the presence of our protÉgÉ at ChitrÁl, and the first thing that the virtuous Afzul-ul-Mulk did, was to invite as many brothers as were within reach to a banquet when he murdered them. No doubt, as a single-minded potentate, he did not wish to be diverted from the task of governing his country by the performance of social duties to the large circle of acquaintances in brothers and their families which Providence bestows on a native ruler or claimant in ChitrÁl and Yasin. A member of the Khush-waqtia dynasty of Yasin, which is a branch of the ChitrÁl dynasty, told me when I expressed my astonishment at the constant murders in his family: “A real relative in a high family is a person whom God points out to one to kill as an obstacle in one’s way, whereas a foster-relative (generally of a lower class) is a true friend who rises and falls with one’s own fortune” (it being the custom for a scion of a noble house to be given out to a nurse.)

The dynasty of Chitral is said to have been established by Baba Ayub, an adventurer of Khorassan. He adopted the already existing name of KatÓr, whence the dynasty is called Katore. The Emperor Baber refers to the country of KatÓr in his Memoirs and a still more ancient origin has been found in identifying KatÓr with “Kitolo, the King of the Great Yuechi, who, in the beginning of the 5th century, conquered Balkh and Gandhara, and whose son established the Kingdom of the Little Yuechi, at Peshawur.” (See Biddulph’s “Tribes of the Hindoo Koosh,” page 148.) General Cunningham asserts that the King of ChitrÁl takes the title of Shah Kator, which has been held for nearly 2,000 years, and the story of their descent from Alexander may be traced to the fact that they were the successors of the Indo-Grecian Kings in the Kabul valley. If KatÓr is a corruption of Kaisar, then let it not be said that the remnant of the Katore exclaimed with the Roman gladiator: “Ave, Kaisar-i-Hind, morituri te salutant.”

AmÁn-ul-Mulk, the late ruler of ChitrÁl, was, indeed, a terrible man, who to extraordinary courage joined the arts of the diplomatist. He succeeded his elder brother, surnamed Adam-KhÔr or “man-eater.” His younger brother, Mir Afzul, is said to have been killed by him or to have committed a convenient suicide; another brother, Sher Afzul, who is now in possession of ChitrÁl, was long a fugitive in Badakhshan whence he has just returned with a few Afghans (such as any pretender can ever collect) and a hundred of the ChitrÁli slaves that used to be given in tribute to the Mir of Badakhshan, which itself never paid a tribute to Kabul before the late Sher Ali of Afghanistan installed Mahmud Shah, who expelled his predecessor Jehandar Shah, the friend of Abdur-Rahman, the present Amir of Afghanistan. Another brother of Aman-ul-Mulk was Kokhan Beg, whose daughter married the celebrated Mullah Shahu Baba, a man of considerable influence in Bajaur, who is feared by the Badshah of Kunar (a feudatory of Kabul and a friend of the British) and is an enemy of the KamÔji Kafirs, that infest one of the roads to ChitrÁl. This Kokhan Beg, who was a maternal uncle of Afzul-ul-Mulk, was killed the other day by his brother Sher Afzul coming from Badakhshan. I mention all this, as in the troubles that are preparing, the ramifications of the interests of the various pretenders are a matter of importance. Other brothers of Aman-ul-Mulk are: Muhammad Ali (Moriki), YÁdgar Beg, ShÁdman Beg and BahÁdur KhÁn (all by a mother of lower degree), and another BahÁdur KhÁn, who was on the Council of NizÁm-ul-Mulk. NizÁm-ul-Mulk has therefore to contend with one or more of his uncles, and by to-day’s telegram[112] is on his way to the ChitrÁl Fort in order to expel Sher Afzul with the aid of the very troops that Sher Afzul had sent to turn out Afzul-ul-Mulk’s Governor from Yasin. I believe that NizÁm-ul-Mulk has or had two elder half-brothers, Gholam of OyÔn and Majid Dastagir of DrÔshp; but, in any case, he was the eldest legitimate son and, according to ChitrÁl custom, was invested with the title of Badshah of Turikoh, the rule of which valley compelled his absence from ChitrÁl and not “his wicked and intriguing disposition” as alleged by certain Anglo-Indian journals. Of other brothers of NizÁm-ul-Mulk was Shah Mulk (of lower birth), who was Governor of Daraung and was killed by Afzul-ul-Mulk. He used to live at Dros (near Pathan in Shashi). Afzul-ul-Mulk of Drasun, whom we have already mentioned as a wholesale fratricide, was killed in his flight to one of the towers of the ChitrÁl Fort from the invading force of his uncle, Sher Afzul of Badakhshan. A younger half-brother is also Behram-ul-Mulk (by a lower mother), called “VilÁyeti,” of Moroi in Andarti. Other brothers are: Amin-ul-Mulk, a brother of good birth of OyÔn (ShoghÔt), who was reared by a woman of the ZondrÉ or highest class; Wazir-ul-Mulk (of low birth) of BrÔz; Abdur-Rahman (low-born) at Owir (BarpÈsh), and Badshah-i-Mulk, also of Owir, who was reared by the wife of Fath-Ali Shah. There are no doubt other brothers also whose names I do not know. Murid, who was killed by Sher Afzul, is also an illegitimate brother.

A few words regarding the places mentioned in recent telegrams may be interesting: ShogÔth is the name of a village, of a fort, and of a district which is the north-western part of ChitrÁl, and it also comprises the Ludkho and tributary valleys. Through the district is the road leading to the Dara and NuqsÁn passes, to the right and left respectively, at the bottom of which is a lake on which official toadyism has inflicted the name of Dufferin in supersession of the local name. Darushp (DrÔshp) is another big village in this district and in the Ludkho valley, and Andarti is a Fort in it within a mile of the Kafir frontier. The inhabitants of ShogÔth are descendants of Munjanis, whose dialect (Yidgah) I refer to elsewhere, and chiefly profess to be Shiahs, in consequence of which they have been largely exported as slaves by their Sunni rulers. Baidam Khan, a natural son of Aman-ul-Mulk, was the ruler of it. The Ludkho valley is traversed by the Arkari river which falls into that of ChitrÁl. At the head of the Arkari valley are three passes over the Hindukhush, including the evil-omened “NuqsÁn,” which leads to Zeibak, the home of the heretical Maulais (co-religionists of the Assassins of the Crusades) in BadakhshÁn. It is shorter, more direct, and freer from Kafir raids than the longer and easier Dora pass. Owir is a village of 100 houses on the Arkari river, and is about 36 miles from Zeibak. Drasan is both the name of a large village and of a fort which commands the Turikoh valley, a subdivision of the Drasan District, which is the seat of the heir-apparent to the ChitrÁl throne (NizÁm-ul-Mulk). Yet the Pioneer, in its issue of the 5th October last, considers that Lord Lansdowne had settled the question of succession in favour of Afzul-ul-Mulk, that NizÁm-ul-Mulk would thus be driven to seek Russian aid, but that any such aid would be an infringement of the rights of Abdur-Rahman. Now that Abdur-Rahman is suspected, on the flimsiest possible evidence, to have connived at Sher Afzul’s invasion of ChitrÁl, we seek to pick a quarrel with him for what a few weeks ago was considered an assertion of his rights. Let it be repeated once for always that if ever Abdur-Rahman or NizÁm-ul-Mulk, or the Chief of Hunza or Kashmir or Upper India fall into the arms of Russia, it will be maxima nostra culpa. I know the Amir Abdur-Rahman, as I knew the Amir Sher Ali, as I know NizÁm-ul-Mulk, and of all I can assert that no truer friends to England existed in Asia than these Chiefs. Should Abdur-Rahman be alienated, as Sher Ali was, or NizÁm-ul-Mulk might be, it will be entirely in consequence of our meddlesomeness and our provocations. Russia has merely to start a will-o’-the-wisp conversation between Grombcheffsky and the Chief of Hunza, when there is internal evidence that Grombcheffsky was never in Hunza at all, and certainly never went there by the Muztagh Pass, that we, ignoring the right of China and of the treaty with Kashmir in 1846, forgetful of the danger in our rear and the undesirability of paving for an invader the road in front, fasten a quarrel on Hunza-Nagyr, and slaughter its inhabitants. No abuse or misrepresentation was spared in order to inflame the British public even against friendly and inoffensive Nagyr. What wonder that a Deputation was sent from Hunza to seek Russian aid and that it returned contented with presents, and public expressions of sympathy which explained away the Russian official refusal as softened by private assurances of friendship? Whatever may be the disaster to civilization in the ascendancy of Russian rule, the personal behaviour of Russian agents in Central Asia is, generally, pleasant. As in Hunza, so in Afghanistan, some strange suspicion of the disloyalty of its Chief, suggested by Russia, may involve us in a senseless war and inordinate expense, with the eventual result that Afghanistan must be divided between England and Russia, and their frontiers in Asia become conterminous. Then will it be impossible for England ever to oppose Russia in Europe, because fear of complications in Asia will paralyze her. Then the tenure of India will depend on concessions, for which that country is not yet ripe, or on a reign of terror, either course ending in the withdrawal of British administration from, at any rate, Northern India. Yet it is “Fas ab hosti doceri,” and when Prince Gortschakoff urged the establishment of a neutral zone with autonomous states, including Badakhshan, he advocated a policy that would have conducted to centuries of peace and to the preservation of various ancient forms of indigenous Oriental civilization by interposing the mysterious blanks of the Pamirs and the inaccessible countries of the Hindukush between Russian and British aggression.

Instead of this consummation so devoutly to be wished, and possible even now, though late, if action be taken under good advice and in the fulness of knowledge, either Power—

If ever the pot called the kettle black, it is the story of Anglo-Russian recriminations. Russian intrigues are ever met by British manoeuvres and Muscovite earth-hunger can only be paralleled by English annexations. Here a tribe is instigated to revolt, so that its extermination may “rectify a boundary,” there an illusory scientific frontier is gradually created by encroachments on the territories of feudatories accused of disloyalty, if not of attempts to poison our agents. By setting son against father, brother against brother and, in the general tumult, destroying intervening republics and monarchies, Anglo-Russian dominions are becoming conterminous. Above all

“There’s not a one of them but in his house

I keep a servant fee’d.”

And it is this unremitting suspicion which is alike the secret of present success and the cause of eventual failure in wresting and keeping Asiatic countries and of the undying hatred which injured natives feel towards Europeans.

The attempt to obtain the surrender of the Takk fort, and of the Takk valley, a short and easy road to the British District of KaghÁn, has merely indicated to Russia the nearest way to India, just as we forced her attention to Hunza and are now drawing it to ChitrÁl. David Urquhart used to accuse us of conspiracy with Russia in foreign politics. Lord Dufferin in his Belfast speech sought the safety of India in his friendship with M. de Giers and his Secretary popularized Russia in India by getting his work on “Russia” translated into Urdu. Certainly the coincidence of Russian as well as British officials being benefited by their respective encroachments, Commissions, Delimitations, etc., would show their “mutual interest” to consist in keeping up the farce of “Cox and Box” in Central Asia, which must end in a tragedy.

As an official since 1855, when I served Her Majesty during the Russian War, I wish to warn the British public against the will-o’-the-wisp of our foreign policy, especially in India. I can conceive that a small, moral and happy people should seek the ascendancy of its principles, even if accompanied by confusion in the camps of its enemies. I can understand that the doctrines of Free Trade, of a free Press, a Parliamentary rule, the Anti-Slavery propaganda and philanthropic enterprises generally, with which the British name is connected, should have been as good as an army to us in every country of the world in which they created a Liberal party, but these doctrines have often weakened foreign Executive Governments, whilst “Free Trade” ruined their native manufacture. What I, however, cannot understand is that a swarming, starving and unhappy population should seek consolation for misery at home in Quixotism abroad, especially when that Quixotism is played out. If bread costs as much now as in 1832 although the price of wheat has fallen from 60s. to 27s. a quarter, it is, indeed, high time that we should lavish no more blood and treasure on the stones of foreign politics, but that we should first extract the beam from our own eye before we try to take out the mote from the eye of others.

What these foreign politics are worth may be inferred from the growing distrust on the Continent of British meddlesomeness or from what we should ourselves feel if even so kindred a race as the Prussians sought to monopolize British wealth and positions. It would be worse, if they did so without possessing a thorough knowledge of the English language or of British institutions. Yet we are not filled with misgivings when our Indian Viceroys or Secretaries of State cannot speak Hindustani, the lingua franca of India or when an Under-Secretary has a difficulty in finding Calcutta on the Map.

India should be governed in the fulness of knowledge and sympathy, not by short cuts. It should not be the preserve of a Class, but the one proud boast of its many and varied peoples. When Her Majesty assumed Her Indian title, it was by a mere accident, in which pars magna fui, at the last moment, that the Proclamation was translated to those whom it concerned at the Imperial Assemblage. This superciliousness, wherever we can safely show it, the cynical abandonment of our friends, the breach of pledges, the constant experimentalizing on the natives, the mysteriousness that conceals official ignorance, is the enemy to British rule in India, not Russia. A powerful Empire can afford to discard the arts of the weak, and should even “show its hand.” India should be ruled by a permanent Viceroy, a member of the Royal family, not by one whom the exigencies of party can appoint and shift. When in 1869 the Chiefs and people of the Panjab deputed me to submit their petition that H.R.H. the Prince of Wales be pleased to visit India, it was because they felt that it was desirable in the interests of loyalty to the Throne. If it be true that H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught is going out as the next Viceroy, I can only say that the longer his admirers miss him in England, the better for India, which requires its best interests to be grouped round a permanent Chief.

Dec. 7th.—As for the wanton aggression on ChilÁs which never gave us the least trouble, as all our Deputy Commissioners of Abbottabad can testify, it is a sequel of our interference last year with Hunza-Nagyr. The Gilgit Residency has disturbed a peace that has existed since 1856 and now continues in its suicidal policy of indicating and paving the nearest military road to British territory to an invader. In November 1891 I wrote of the possibility of driving even the peaceful, if puritanical, ChilÁsis into aggression and now the Times telegraphs the cock-and-bull story of the raft, enlarged in to-day’s Times telegram into an attack of the ChilÁsi tribesmen aided by those of DarÊl (another newly-created foe) on our convoy proceeding from Bunji—the extreme frontier of Kashmir according to the treaty of 1846—to Dr. Robertson’s Camp at (now) Talpenn (spelt “Thalpin” in the telegram) and (then) GÔr, with, of course, the inevitable result of the victory of the heroism of rifles against a few old muskets and iron wrist-bands (which the ChilÁsis use in fighting).

There are still other realms to conquer for our heroes. There is the small Republic of Talitsha of 11 houses; there is ChilÁs itself which admits women to the tribal Councils and is thus in advance even of the India Office and of the Supreme Council of the Government of India; there is the Republic of Muhammadan learning, KandiÁ, that has not a single fort; there is, of course, pastoral Dareyl; there are the Koli-Palus tribes, agricultural TangÎr and other little Republics. Soon may we hear of acts of “treachery,” “disloyalty,” etc. from HÔdur and SazÎn, till we shoot down the supposed offenders with Gatlings and destroy the survivors with our civilization. I humbly protest against these tribes being sacrificed to a mistaken Russophobia. I have some claim to be heard. I discovered and named Dardistan and am a friend of its peoples. Although my life was attempted more than once by agents of the Maharaja of Kashmir, I was the means of saving that of his Commander-in-Chief, Zoraweru, when on his Dareyl expedition. This is what the Gilgit Doctor did in 1866 and what the Gilgit Doctor should do in 1892. This is how friendship for the British name was, and should be, cemented, and not by shedding innocent blood or by acts worthy of agents provocateurs.

As for the “toujours perdrix” of the Afghan advance from Asmar (Times, December 8th) it is better than the telegram in the Standard of the 2nd December 1892, in which the Amir makes Sher Afzul Ruler of Kafiristan, a country that has yet to be conquered, and which says “Consequently there is now no buffer-state between Afghanistan and the Pamirs”!! “Goods carried from India to Russian Turkestan, through Chitral and Kafiristan, will pay duty to the Amir.” Such journalistic forecasts and geography are inevitable when full and faithful official information, such as it is, is, in a free country, not obtainable by Parliament, the Press, and the Public. Reuter’s Central Asian Telegrams, though meagre, are more correct than those of certain correspondents of the Times and Standard.

Dec. 9th.—Dr. Robertson has, at last, entered ChilÁs, and found it deserted. Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. The Times Correspondent now admits that ChilÁs has no connexion with ChitrÁl, but he still gives us “Tangail” for “Tangir,” and omits the name of the member of the ex-royal family of Yasin, who is supposed to have stirred up against us the tribes of Darel and “Tangail,” among whom he has resided for years. This is one of the Khushwaqtias, though not the loyal chief to whom I have referred, and who has rendered us good service. So we have now an excuse for entering Tangir also. In the meanwhile, the Russian Svet points out that the Russians “would only have to march some 250 miles along a good road to enter Cashmere,” “since it is impossible to invade India viÂ Afghanistan.” Yet are we nibbling at the Amir Abdurrahman, whose troops merely occupy the status quo ante at Asmar, confronted by Umra Khan on the other side of the Kuner river. We are forgetting the lessons of the Afghan campaigns, and especially that, although Abdurrahman allowed himself to be proclaimed by us, in his absence, as Amir, he marched in at one side of Kabul, whilst we marched out at the other. We forget that, with the whole country against us in a revived JehÁd, with the discontent among our native troops and with a crushing expenditure, we preferred a political fiasco in order to avoid a still greater military fiasco. The Russians also urge “the construction of a military road on their side from Marghelan across the Pamirs” leaving us to finish it for them on our side of the Hindukush. The pretension to Wakhan, however, is already disposed of in Prince Gortchakoff’s Convention with Lord Granville in 1872, and no notice need be taken of the preposterous claim of the Svet to place ChitrÁl under a Russian protectorate! Thus have we sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Our real defence of India lies, as Lord Lawrence ever held, in its good government, and to this I would respectfully add, in justice to its Chiefs, wherever they have a legitimate grievance. Mere speeches of Viceroys, unaccompanied by acts, will not convince them of our “good intentions.” It is also not by emasculating the Dard tribes and breaking down their powers of resistance to the level of Slaves to the British, that we can interpose an effectual barrier to the invading Myriads of Slavs that threaten the world’s freedom. By giving to the loyalty of India the liberty which it deserves, on the indigenous bases that it alone really understands and in accordance with the requirements of the age, we can alone lead our still martial Indian Millions in the defence of the Roman Citizenship which should be the reward of their chivalrous allegiance to the Queen.

G. W. Leitner.

P.S.—15 Dec. 1892. The just cause of NizÁm-ul-Mulk appears to have triumphed. Sher Afzul is said to have fled. So far ChitrÁl. As for ChilÁs, the people have come to Dr. Robertson’s Camp and express friendliness.

LETTERS FROM MIHTAR NIZAM-UL-MULK TO DR. LEITNER:

My kind and true friend and dear companion, may you know:

That before this, prompted by excess of friendship and belief in me, you had written to me a letter of sincerity full of pleasing precepts and words of faithfulness. These were received and caused joy to my heart. My true friend, whatever words of faith and sincere regard there were, these have been written in my mind. For I am one of your disciples and well-wishers here, and have no other care but that of serving and well-wishing my friends. My heart sorrows at separation from friends, but there is no remedy except resignation. As I consider your stay there [in London] as my own stay, I hope from your friendship that you have expressed words of my well-being and my sincerity towards the Lord Bahadoor and the Great Queen and thus performed the office of friendship and caused joy there. Another request is that if you have found a good dog like “Zulu,” when you come to Delhi please send it to Jummoo. My men are there, and shall bring it to me. Further, the volume of papers on the customs of ChitrÁr and the old folk-tales have been written partly in Persian and partly in the ChitrÁri language. We are frontier and village people, and are deficient in intelligence and eloquence. They have not been very well done, and I don’t know if they will please you or not. But we have no better eloquence or practice as we are hillmen.

Tuesday 11th Shavval 1304 despatched from Turikoh to London.

The standard of affection and friendship, the foundation-stone of kindness and obligation, my friend, may his kindness increase!

After expressing the desire of your joy-giving meeting be it known to your kind self, that the condition of this your faithful friend is such as to call for thanks to the Almighty. The safety and good health of that friend [yourself] is always wished for. As you had sent me several volumes of bound papers to write on them the customs of the Chitrar people and their folk-tales, partly in Persian and partly in Chitrari language, I have in accordance with this request of that true friend got them written partly in Persian and partly in Chitrari and sent to you. Inshallah, they will reach you, but I do not know whether they will please you or not; in any case you know, that whatever may be possible to do by a faithful friend or by his employÉs I will do, with the help of God, if you will forgive any faulty execution of your wishes, and continue to remember me for any services in my power, and keep me informed continually of your good health so as to dispel my anxiety. The condition here is of all news the best, as no new event has happened; but three persons, wayfarers and travellers, have come from Wakhan to Mastuch and two of these persons I have sent on to Chitrar, and one of these wanderers has remained (behind) at Mastuch. They don’t know anybody. Sometimes they say we are Russians, and sometimes they say we are Frenchmen. And I with my own eye have not seen them. If I had seen them, they might have told me. Another desire is that you send me something worth reading in English words and write opposite to them their translation into Persian, so that it may be a pleasure and useful to me. I have another request to make which is that you may be pleased to give an early fulfilment to your kind promise of visiting Chitrar with your lady for the purpose of sight-seeing and sport and study. I have been waiting ever since for your arrival. It is really only right that you should come now when the weather is very delightful, game is abundant, and I have made every arrangement for our hunting together. Everything is tranquil and you will be able to return before the winter, greatly pleased. Let this become a fact. The writer Sirdar Nizam-ul-Mulk, Tuesday the 11th of ShevvÁl, from Turikoh to London. May it be received!

APPENDIX III.
FABLES, LEGENDS, AND SONGS OF CHITRAL[113]
(called ChitrÁr by the natives).

Collected by H. H. Sirdar NizÁm-ul-Mulk, Raja of Yasin, etc., and by Dr. G. W. Leitner, and translated from Persian or ChitrÁli.

I. Fables.

1. The Vindictive Fowl.

A fowl sat near a thistle, and opened a rag, in which corals were tied up. Suddenly one fell into the thistle; the fowl said, “O thistle, give me my coral.” The thistle said, “This is not my business.” The fowl said, “Then I will burn thee.” The thistle agreed. The fowl then begged the fire to burn the thistle. The fire replied, “Why should I burn this weak thorn?” The fowl thereupon threatened to extinguish the fire by appealing to water: “O water, kill this fire for my sake.” The water asked, “What is thy enmity with the fire, that I should kill it?” The fowl said, “I will bring a lean cow to drink thee up.” The water said, “Well”; but the cow refused, as it was too lean and weak to do so. Then the fowl threatened to bring the wolf to eat the cow. The wolf refused, as he could feed better on fat sheep. The fowl threatened the wolf with the huntsman, as he would not eat the lean cow. The huntsman refused to shoot the wolf, as it was not fit to eat. The fowl then threatened the huntsman with the mouse. The huntsman replied, “Most welcome.” But the mouse said that it was feeding on almonds and other nice things, and had no need to gnaw the leather-skin of the huntsman. The fowl then said, “I will tell the cat to eat thee.” The mouse said, “The cat is my enemy in any case, and will try to catch and eat me, wherever it comes across me, so what is the use of your telling the cat?” The fowl then begged the cat to eat the mouse. The cat agreed to do so whenever it was hungry: “Now,” it added, “I do not care to do so.” The fowl then became very angry, and threatened to bring little boys to worry the cat. The cat said, “Yes.” The fowl then begged the little boys to snatch the cat one from the other, so that it might know what it was to be vexed. The boys, however, just then wanted to play and fight among themselves, and did not care to interrupt their own game. The fowl then threatened to get an old man to beat the boys. The boys said, “By all means.” But the old man refused to beat the boys without any cause, and called the fowl a fool. The fowl then said to the PÎr (old man), “I will tell the wind to carry away thy wool.” The old man acquiesced; and the wind, when ordered by the fowl, with its usual perverseness, obeyed the fowl, and carried off the old man’s wool. Then the old man beat the boys, and the boys worried the cat, and the cat ran after the mouse, and the mouse bit the huntsman in the waist, and the huntsman went after the wolf, and the wolf bit the cow, and the cow drank the water, and the water came down on the fire, and the fire burnt the thistle, and the thistle gave the coral to the fowl, and the fowl took back its coral.

2. The Story of the Golden Mouse who tells the Story of a Mouse and a Frog.

There was a kind of mice that had a golden body. They never went out of their hole. One day one of them thought: “I will go out and see the wonders of God’s creation.” So it did; and when thirty or forty yards from its hole, a cat, prowling for game, saw it come out from the hole. The cat, that was full of wiles, plotted to get near the hole, awaiting the return of the mouse, who, after its peregrinations, noticed the mouth of the hole closed by the wicked cat. The mouse then wished to go another way, and turned to the left, towards a tree, on which sat concealed a crow, expecting to devour the mouse when it should run away from the cat. The crow then pounced on the mouse, who cried out to God, “O God, why have these misfortunes overtaken such a small being as myself? My only help is in thee, to save me from these calamities.” The mouse was confused, and ran hither and thither, in vain seeking a refuge, when it saw another cat stealthily approaching it; and, in its perplexity, the mouse nearly ran into the cat’s paws; but that cat had been caught in a hunter’s net, and could do nothing. The crow, and the cat which was watching at the hole, saw that the mouse had got near another cat between the two. They thought that the mouse had fallen a victim to the second cat, and that it was no use remaining. It was the fortune of the mouse that they should be so deceived. The trembling mouse saw that the two enemies had gone. It thanked the Creator for having escaped from the cat and the crow, and it said, “It would be most unmanly of me not to deliver the cat in the net, as it has been the instrument of my safety; but then, if I set it free, it will eat me.” The mouse was immersed in thought, and came to the conclusion to gnaw the net at a distance from the cat, and that as soon as the hunter should come in sight, the cat then, being afraid of the hunter, would seek its own safety, and not trouble itself about the mouse. “Thus I will free the cat from the hunter and the net, and deliver my own life from the cat,” was the thought of the mouse. It then began to gnaw the net at a distance. The cat then said to the mouse, “If you want to save me, for God’s sake, then gnaw the net round my throat, and not at a distance; that is no use to me when the hunter will come. You err if you think that I will eat you as soon as I get out. For all the faults, hitherto, have been on the side of cats, which you mice have never injured, so that, if you are magnanimous and release me, there is no such ungrateful monster in the world as would return evil for the unmerited good that I implore you to bestow on me.” The golden mouse, which was very wise, did not attend to this false speech, but continued to gnaw the net at a distance, so that, when the hunter came, there only remained the threads round the neck of the cat, which the mouse bit asunder at the last moment and then ran back into its hole. The cat bolted up the tree where the crow had sat, the huntsman saw that the cat had escaped, and that his net was gnawed in several places, so he took the net to get it repaired in the Bazaar.

Then the cat descended from the tree and said to herself, “The time of meals is over, it is no use to go home; I had better make friends with the mouse, entice it out of the hole, and eat it.” This she did, and going to the hole, called out: “O faithful companion and sympathizing friend, although there has been enmity between cats and mice for a long time, thou hast, by God’s order, been the cause of my release, therefore come out of the hole, and let us lay the foundation of our friendship.” The mouse replied: “I once tried to come out, and then I fell from one danger into another. Now it is difficult for me to comply with your request. I have cut the threads encircling your throat, not out of friendship for you, but out of gratitude to God. Nor is our friendship of any use in this world, as you will gather from the story of

3. “The Frog and the Mouse.”

The mouse then narrated: “There was once a mouse that went out for a promenade, and going into people’s houses, found food here and there, and in the dawn of the next morning it was returning to its home. It came to a place where there was a large tank, round which there were flowers and trees; and a voice was heard from out of the tank. Coming near, it saw that it emanated from a being that had no hair on its body, no tail, and no ear. The mouse said to itself: ‘What is this ill-formed being?’ and thanked God that it was not the ugliest of creatures. With this thought the mouse, that was standing still, shook its head to and fro. The frog, however, thought that the mouse was smitten with astonishment at his beauty and entranced with pleasure at his voice, and jumping out of the corner of the tank came near: ‘I know, beloved, that you are standing charmed with my voice; we ought to lay the firm basis of our friendship, but you are sharper than I am, therefore go to the house of an old woman and steal from it a thread, and bring it here.’ The mouse obeyed the order. The frog then said: ‘Now tie one end to your tail and I will tie the other end to my leg, because I want to go to your house, where you have a large family and there are many other mice, so that I may know you from the others. If again you visit me, the tank is large, my friends many, and you too ought to distinguish me from the rest. Again, when I want to see you I will follow the thread to your hole, and when you want to see me you will follow it to the tank.’ This being settled, they parted. One day the frog wanted to see the mouse. Coming out of the tank he was going to its hole, when he saw the mouse-hawk, who pounced upon the frog as he was limping along, and flew up with him in its claws. This pulled the end to which the mouse was tied. It thought that its lover had come to the place and wanted to see it; so it came out, only to be dragged along in the air under the mouse-hawk. As the unfortunate mouse passed a Bazaar it called out: ‘O ye Mussulmans, learn from my fate what happens to whoever befriends beings of a different species.’

“Now,” said the golden mouse to the cat, “this is the story which teaches me what to do; and that is, to decline your friendship and to try never again to see your face.”

4. The Quail and the Fox.

The Quail said: I teach thee art.

Night and day I work at art;

Whoever lies, the shame is on his neck.

A quail and a fox were friends. The fox said: “Why should you not make me laugh some day?” The quail replied, “This is easy.” So they went to a Bazaar, where the quail, looking through the hole in the wall of a house, saw a man sitting, and his wife turning up and down the “samanak” sweetmeat with a big wooden ladle (much in the same way as the Turkish rakat lokum, or lumps of delight, are made). The quail then settled on the head of the man. The woman said to him, “Don’t stir; I will catch it.” Then the quail sat on the woman’s head, so the man asked the woman to be quiet, as he would catch the quail, which, however, then flew back to the head of the man. This annoyed the wife, who struck at the quail with the wooden ladle, but hit instead the face of her husband, whose eye and beard were covered with the sweetmeat, and who thereupon beat his wife. When the fox saw this, he rejoiced and laughed greatly; and both the fox and quail returned to their home. After a time the fox said to the quail: “It is true that you have made me laugh, but could you feed me?” This the quail undertook to do, and with the fox went to a place where a woman was carrying a plate of loaves of bread to her husband in the fields. Then the quail repeated her tactics, and sat on the head of the woman, who tried to catch it with one hand. The quail escaped and settled on one shoulder, then on another, and so on till the woman became enraged, put the plate of bread on the ground, and ran after the quail, who, by little leaps, attracted her further and further away till she was at a considerable distance from it, when the fox pounced on the bread and appeased his hunger.

Some time after, the fox wanted to put the cleverness of the quail again to the test, and said: “You have made me laugh, you have fed me, now make me weep.” The quail replied, “Why, this is the easiest task of all,” so she took the fox to the gate of the town and called out: “O ye dogs of the Bazaar, come ye as many as ye are, for a fox has come to the gate!” So all the dogs, hearing this good news, assembled to hunt the fox, which, seeing the multitude of its enemies, fled till he reached a high place. Turning round, he saw the dogs following, so he jumped down and broke his back. The fox therefore helplessly sat down and said to the approaching quail: “O sympathizing companion, see how my mouth has become filled with mud and blood, and how my back has been broken. This is my fate in this world; now, could you kindly clean my mouth from mud and blood, as my end is near?” The intention of the fox was, that he should take the opportunity of this artifice to swallow the quail in revenge of her being the cause of its death. The quail, in her unwise friendship, began to clean the fox’s mouth. The accursed fox caught her in his mouth; but the quail, which was intelligent and clever, said, “O beloved friend, your eating me is lawful, because I forgive you my blood, on condition that you pronounce my name, otherwise you will suffer an injury.” The base fox, although full of wiles, clouded by approaching death, fell into the trap, and as soon as he said “O quail,” his teeth separated, and the quail flew away from him and was safe, whilst the fox died.

II. Stories and Legends.

There is a story which seems to illustrate the fact that private hatred is often the cause of the injury that is ascribed to accident. A man slaughtered a goat, and kept it over-night in an outhouse. His enemy put a number of cats through the airhole, and when their noise awoke the master of the house he only found the bones of his goat. But he took their bones, and scattered them over the field of his enemy the same night; and the dogs came, smelling the bones, searched for them, and destroyed the wheat that was ripe for reaping. One blamed the cats, the other blamed the dogs; but both had the reward of their own actions.

Sulei was a man well known on the frontier of ChitrÁl for his eloquence. One day, as he was travelling, he met a man from Badakhshan, who asked him whether he knew Persian. Sulei said, “No.” “Then,” replied the Badakhshi, “you are lost” [nobody, worthless]. Sulei at once rejoined, “Do you know KhowÁr?” (the language of ChitrÁl). “No,” said the Badakhshi. “Then you too are lost,” wittily concluded Sulei (to show that personal worth or eloquence does not depend on knowing any particular language).

It is related that beyond Upper ChitrÁr there is a country called Shin or Rashan. It is very beautiful, and its plains are gardens, and its trees bear much fruit, and its chunars (plane trees) and willows make it a shaded land. Its earth is red, and its water is white and tasty. They say that in ancient times the river of that district for a time flowed with milk without the dashing (of the waves) of water.

Besir is a place near Ayin towards Kafiristan. The inhabitants were formerly savage Kafirs, but are now subjects of the Mehter (Prince) of ChitrÁr. They carry loads of wood, and do not neglect the work of the Mehter. They are numerous and peaceful, and in helplessness like fowls, but they are still Kafirs; though in consequence of their want of energy and courage they are called “KalÀsh.” The people of Ayin say that in ancient times five savages fled into the Shidi Mount and concealed themselves there.

Shidi is below Ayin opposite GherÁt on the east (whence Shidi is on the west). Between them is a river. It is said that these savages had to get their food by the chase. One day word came to them from God that “to-day three troops of deer will pass; don’t interfere with the first, but do so with the others.” When, however, the troops came, the savages forgot the injunctions of God, and struck the first deer. Now there was a cavern in the mountain where they lived, into which they took the two or three deer that they had killed and were preparing to cook, two being sent out to fetch water. By God’s order the lips of the cavern were closed, and the three men imprisoned in it. God converted the three into bees, whilst the two who had gone to fetch water fled towards Afghanistan. Thus were created the first honey-bees, who, finding their way out of the cavern, spread themselves and their sweet gift all over the world. This is a story told by the KalÀsh, who credit that the bees are there still; but it is difficult to get there, as the mountains are too steep, but people go near it and, pushing long rods into the hole of the cavern, bring them back covered with honey.

Shah Muhterim is the name of a Mehter (prince), the grandfather of the present Ruler of ChitrÁr. This Mehter was renowned as a descendant of fairies, who all were under his command. Whatever he ordered the fairies did. Thus some time passed. From among them he married a fairy, with whom he made many excursions. She bore him a daughter. Seven generations have passed since that time. This daughter is still alive, and her sign among the fairies is that her hair is white, which does not happen to ordinary fairies. Whenever a descendant of the Shah Muhterim leaves this transitory world for the region of permanence, all the fairies, who reside in the mountains of ChitrÁr, together with that white-haired lady, weep and lament, and their voices are clearly heard. This statement is sure and true, and all the men on the frontiers of ChitrÁr are aware of the above fact.

The People of Aujer (the Boeotia of Chitral).

There is a country “Aujer,” on the frontier of ChitrÁr (or Chitral as we call it), the inhabitants of which in ancient times were renowned for their stupidity. One had taken service at ChitrÁr, and at a certain public dinner noticed that the King (Padishah) ate nothing. So he thought that it was because the others had not given anything to the king. This made him very sorry. He left the assembly, and reached home towards evening; there he prepared a great amount of bread, and brought it next day to the council enclosure, beckoning to the king with his finger to come secretly to him. The king could not make this out, and sent a servant to inquire what was the matter; but the man would not say anything except that the king should come himself. On this the king sent his confidant to find out what all this meant. The man answered the inquiries of the confidant by declaring that he had no news or claim, but “as they all ate yesterday and gave nothing to the king, my heart has become burnt, and I have cooked all this bread for him.” The messenger returned and told the king, who told the meeting, causing them all to laugh. The king, too, smiled, and said: “As this poor man has felt for my need, I feel for his;” and ordered the treasurer to open for him the door of the treasury, so that he might take from it what he liked. The treasurer took him to the gate, next to which was the treasurer’s own house, where he had put a big water-melon, on which fell the eye of that stupid man from Aujer. He had never seen such a thing, and when he asked, “What is it?” the treasurer, knowing what a fool he had to deal with, said, “This is the egg of a donkey.” Then he showed him the gold, silver, jewels, precious cloths, and clean habiliments of the treasury from which to select the king’s present. The man was pleased with nothing, and said, “I do not want this; but, if you please, give me the egg of the donkey, then I shall indeed be glad.” The treasurer and the king’s confidant, consulting together, came to the conclusion that this would amuse the king to hear, and gave him the melon, with the injunction not to return to the king, but to take the egg to his house, and come after some nights (days). The fool was charmed with this request, went towards his home, but climbing a height, the melon fell out of his hand, rolled down towards a tree and broke in two pieces. Now there was a hare under that tree, which fled as the melon touched the tree. The fool went to his house full of grief, said nothing to his wife and children, but sat mournfully in a corner. The wife said, “O man, why art thou sorry? and what has happened?” The man replied: “Why do you ask? there is no necessity.” Finally, on the woman much cajoling him, he said: “From the treasury of the prince (mehter) I had brought the egg of the donkey; it fell from me on the road, broke, and the young one fled out from its midst. I tried my utmost, but could not catch it.” The woman said: “You silly fellow! had you brought it, we might have put loads on it.” The man replied, “You flighty thing! how could it do so, when it was still so young? Why, its back would have been broken.” So he got into a great rage, took his axe, and cut down his wife, who died on the spot.

Once, a donkey having four feet, in this country of donkeys having two feet, put his head into a jar of jÁo (barley), but could not extricate it again. So the villagers assembled, but could not hit on a plan to effect this result. But there was a wise man in that land, and he was sent for and came. He examined all the circumstances of the case, and finally decided that they should do him “Bismillah”; that is to say, that they should cut his throat with the formula, “in the name of God,” which makes such an act lawful. When they had done this to the poor donkey, the head remained in the jar, and the wise man ordered them now to break the jar. This they did, and brought out the head of the donkey. The wise man then said: “If I had not been here, in what manner could you have been delivered of this difficulty?” This view was approved by all, even by the owner of the donkey.

Two brothers in that country of idiots, being tired of buying salt every day, decided on sowing it over their fields, so that it may bring forth salt abundantly. The grass grew up, and the grasshoppers came; and the brothers, fearing that their crop of salt would be destroyed, armed themselves with bows and arrows to kill the grasshoppers. But the grasshoppers jumped hither and thither, and were difficult to kill; and one of the brothers hit the other by mistake with an arrow instead of a grasshopper, and he got angry, and shot back and killed his brother.

A penknife once fell into the hands of this people, so they held a council in order to consider what it was. Some thought it was the young one of a sword, the others that it was the baby of an axe, but that its teeth had not yet come out. So the argument waxing hot, they fell to fight one another, and many were wounded and killed.

A number of these people, considering that it was not proper that birds alone should fly, and that they were able to do so, clad themselves in posteens (some of which are made from the light down of the Hindukush eagle), and threw themselves down from a great height, with the result that they reached the ground killed and mangled.

III. Songs.

A Song (of evidently recent date, as the influence on it of Persian poetry is obvious).

The Confession of the Soul.

1. (He.) If thy body be as lithe as (the letter) Alif (?????), thy eye is as full as (the letter) NÛn (?????).

If thou art Laila, this child (or lover) is MajnÛn (referring to the well-known story of these true lovers).

2. (She.) If thou art the Prince of the Sultan of RÛm (Turkey)

Come and sit by me, free from constraint;

My eye has fallen on thee, and I now live.

3. My friend had scarcely come near me—why, alas, has he left?

My flesh has melted from these broken limbs.

4. How could I guard against the enmity of a friend?

May God now save me from such grief!

5. (He.) Were I to see 200 Fairies and 100,000 Houris,

I should be a KÁfir (infidel), O my beloved!

If my thoughts then even strayed from thee.

6. Yea, not the Houri nightingale, nor my own soul and eyes as Houris,

Would, on the day of judgment, divert my thought from thee.

7. I envy the moth, for it can fly

Into the fire in which it is burnt (whereas I cannot meet thee).

8. (She.) My friend, who once came nigh me, suddenly left me—to weep.

My grief should move the very highest heaven.

A coral bed with its root has been torn out and gone.

9. A ship of pilgrims (CalendÁrs) has sunk, and yet the world does not care.

The end of all has been a bad name to me.

10. (He.) On this black earth how can I do (sing) thy praise?

Imbedded in the blue heaven (of my heart) thou wilt find it;

And yet, O child (himself), how great a failure (and below thy merits)!

11. Before thy beauty the very moon is nothing,

For sometimes she is full and sometimes half.

May God give thee to me, my perfect universe!

12. (She.) If an angel were a mortal like myself,

It would be ashamed to see my fate (unmoved).

13. (He.) O angel! strangely without pity,

Thou hast written her good with my evil (linked our fates).

14. (Both.) All have friends, but my friend is the Chief (God),

And of my inner grief that friend is cognizant;

His light alone loves our eyes and soul.

15. Break with the world, its vanities, its love;

Leave ignorance, confess, and let thy goal be heaven!

The following is an attempt to render the pretty tune of a more worldly Laila and MajnÛn song, which reminds one of the “Yodeln” of the Tyrolese. It was sung to me by TaighÛn Shah, the poet-minstrel of the Raja, to the accompaniment of a kind of guitar. The ChitrÁli language, it will be perceived, is musical.

Shin·djÙr is-prÛo sar ma bul-bul hut bÓ·wor TsÁ·ren-tu ru-pÉ

dur thu mor lo - lÉ gam - - bu - - ro shunn donn do - sÉ

Lai - li - ki ha - rosh o - rÉ Majnun o lo - - lÉ!

APPENDIX IV.
THE RACES AND LANGUAGES OF THE HINDU-KUSH.

By Dr. G. W. Leitner.

GROUP OF DARDS AND CENTRAL ASIATICS WITH DR. LEITNER.

Standing Nos. 1 2 3 4 5 6 (see next page.)

Sitting Nos. 7 8 9 10 11 (see next page.)

Standing—1. Khundayar, son of a Shiah Akhun (priest) at Nagyr; 2. Maulvi Najmuddin, a poet from Kolab; 3 and 4. Khudadad and Hatamu, pilgrims from Nagyr; 5. A Chitrali soldier; 6. Matavalli, of Hunza.

Sitting—7. Mir Abdullah, a famous Arabic scholar and jurist from Gabrial; 8. Hakim Habibullah, a Tajik, a physician from Badakshan; 9. Ghulam Muhammad, Dr. Leitner’s Gilgit retainer; 10. Ibrahim Khan, a Shiah, Rono (highest official caste), of Nagyr; 11. Sultan Ali Yashkun, of Nagyr.

The accompanying illustration was autotyped some years ago from a photograph taken in 1881, and is now published for the first time. Following the numbers on each figure represented we come first to No. 1, the tall KhudayÁr, the son of an Akhun or Shiah priest of Nagyr, a country ruled by the old and wise Tham or Raja Zafar Ali Khan, whose two sons, AlidÁd Khan in 1866, and Habib ulla Khan in 1886, instructed me in the KhajunÁ language, which is spoken alike in gentle but brave Nagyr and in its hereditary rival country, the impious and savage Hunza “Hun-land,” represented by figure 6, Matavalli, the ex-kidnapper whom I took to England, trained to some Muhammadan piety, and sent to KerbelÁ a year ago. No. 2 was an excellent man, an Uzbek visitor from KolÁb, one Najmuddin, a poet and theologian, who gave me an account of his country. Nos. 3 and 4 are pilgrims from Nagyr to the distant Shiah shrine in Syria of the martyrdom of Husain at KerbelÁ; No. 5 is a ChitrÁli soldier, whilst No. 7 is a distinguished Arabic Scholar from GabriÁl, from whom much of my information was derived regarding a peaceful and learned home, now, alas! threatened by European approach, which my travels in 1866 and 1872, and my sympathetic intercourse with the tribes of the Hindu Kush, have unfortunately facilitated. The JalkÓti, Dareyli, and others, who are referred to in the course of the present narrative, will either figure on other illustrations or must be “taken as read.” No. 8 is the Sunni Moulvi Habibulla, a TÁjik of Bukhara and a HakÎm (physician). No. 9 is my old retainer, GhulÁm Muhammad, a Shiah of Gilgit, a ShÎn Dard (highest caste), who was prevented by me from cutting down his mother, which he was attempting to do in order “to save her the pain of parting from him.” 10. Ibrahim Khan, a Shiah, RÔno (highest official caste) of Nagyr, pilgrim to KerbelÁ. 11. Sultan Ali Yashkun (2nd ShÎn caste) Shiah, of Nagyr, pilgrim to KerbelÁ. The word “Yashkun” is, perhaps, connected with “Yuechi.”

The languages spoken by these men are: KhajunÁ by the Hunza-Nagyr men; ArnyiÁ by the ChitrÁli; Turki by the Uzbek from KolÁb; ShinÁ by the Gilgiti; Pakhtu and Shuthun, a dialect of ShinÁ, by the GabriÁli. The people of Hunza are dreaded robbers and kidnappers; they, together with the people of Nagyr, speak a language, KhajunÁ, which philologists have not yet been able to classify, but which I believe to be a remnant of a pre-historic language. They are great wine-drinkers and most licentious. They are nominally MulÁis, a heresy within the Shiah schism from the orthodox Sunni Muhammadan faith, but they really only worship their Chief or Raja, commonly called “ThÀm.” The present ruler’s name is Mohammad Khan. They are at constant feud with the people of Nagyr, who have some civilization, and are now devoted Shiahs (whence the number of pilgrims, four, from one village). They are generally fair, and taller than the people of Hunza, who are described as dark skeletons. The Nagyris have fine embroideries, and are said to be accomplished musicians. Their forts confront those of Hunza on the other side of the same river. The people of BadakhshÁn used to deal largely in kidnapped slaves. A refugee, Shahzada Hasan, from the former royal line (which claims descent from Alexander the Great), who has been turned out by the Afghan faction, was then at Gilgit with a number of retainers on fine Badakhshi horses, awaiting the fortunes of war, or, perhaps, the support of the British. He was a younger brother of JehandÁr Shah, who used to infest the KolÁb road, after being turned out by a relative, MahmÛd Shah, with the help of the Amir of Kabul. KolÁb is about eleven marches from FaizabÁd, the capital of BadakhshÁn. The ChitrÁli is from ShogÒt, the residence of Adam Khor (man-eater), brother of Aman-ul-Mulk, of ChitrÁl, who used to sell his Shiah subjects regularly into slavery and to kidnap Bashgeli Kafirs. The man from GabriÁl was attracted to Lahore by the fame of the Oriental College, Lahore, as were also several others in this group; and there can be no doubt that this institution may still serve as a nucleus for sending pioneers of our civilization throughout Central Asia. GabriÁl is a town in KandiÁ, or KiliÁ, which is a secluded Dard country, keeping itself aloof from tribal wars. Gilgit and its representative have been described in my “Dardistan,” to which refer, published in parts between 1866 and 1877.

I. POLO IN HUNZA-NAGYR.

Although our first practical knowledge of “Polo” was derived from the Manipuri game as played at Calcutta, it is not Manipur, but Hunza and Nagyr, that maintain the original rules of the ancient “ChaughÁn-bazi,” so famous in Persian history. The account given by J. Moray Brown for the “Badminton Library” of the introduction of Polo into England (Longmans, Green & Co., 1891), seems to me to be at variance with the facts within my knowledge, for it was introduced into England in 1867, not 1869, by one who had played the Tibetan game as brought to Lahore by me in 1866, after a tour in Middle and Little Tibet. Since then it has become acclimatized not only in England, but also in Europe. The Tibet game, however, does not reach the perfection of the Nagyr game, although it seems to be superior to that of Manipur. Nor is Polo the only game in Hunza-Nagyr. “Shooting whilst galloping” at a gourd filled with ashes over a wooden scaffold rivals the wonderful performances of “archery on horseback,” in which the people of Hunza and Nagyr (not “Nagar,” or the common Hindi word for “town,” as the telegram has it) are so proficient. Nor are European accompaniments wanting to these Central Asian games; for prizes are awarded, people bet freely in Hunza as they do here, they drink as freely, listen to music, and witness the dancing of lady charmers, the DayÁl, who, in Hunza, are supposed to be sorceresses, without whom great festivities lose their main attraction. The people are such keen sportsmen that it is not uncommon for the Tham, or ruler, to confiscate the house of the unskilful hunter who has allowed a MarkhÔr (Ibex) that he might have shot to escape him. Indeed, this even happens when a number of MarkhÔrs are shut up in an enclosure, “tsÁ,” as a preserve for hunting. The following literally translated dialogue regarding Polo and its rules tells an attentive reader more “between the lines” than pages of instructions:—

PolÓ = BolÁ.—The Raja has ordered many people: To-morrow Polo I will play. To the musicians give notice they will play.

Hast thou given notice, O (thou)?

Yes, I have given notice, O NazÚr; let me be thy offering (sacrifice).

Well, we will come out, that otherwise it will become (too) hot.

The Raja has gone out for Polo; go ye, O (ye); the riders will start.

Now divided will be, O ye! (2) goals nine nine (games) we will do (play). Tola-half (= 4 Rupees) a big sheep bet we will do.

Now bet we have made. To the Raja the ball give, O ye, striking (whilst galloping) he will take.

O ye, efforts (search) make, young men, to a man disgrace is death; you your own party abandon not; The Raja has taken the ball to strike; play up, O ye musicians!

Now descend (from your horses) O ye; Tham has come out (victorious); now again the day after to-morrow, he (from fatigue) recovering PolÓ we will strike (play).

Rules:—The musical instruments of Polo; the ground for the game; the riders; the goals; 9, 9 games let be (nine games won); the riders nine one side; nine one (the other) side; when this has become (the case) the drum (TsagÀr) they will strike.

First the Tham takes the ball (out into the Maidan to strike whilst galloping at full speed).

The Tham’s side upper part will take.

The rest will strike from the lower part (of the ground).

Those above the goal when becoming will take to the lower part.

Those below the goal when becoming to above taking the ball will send it flying.

Thus being (or becoming) whose goal when becoming, the ball will be sent flying and the musicians will play.

Whose nine goals when has become, they issue (victorious).

No. 1. Dareyli.	No. 2. Gabriali.
No. 3. Hunza Man.	No. 4. Nagyri.

II. THE KOHISTÁN OF THE INDUS, INCLUDING GABRIÁL.

Account of Mir Abdulla.

The real native place of Mir Abdulla is in the territory of Nandiyar; but his uncle migrated to, and settled in, GabriÁl. The Mir narrates:—

“In the country of Kunar there is a place called Pusht, where lives a Mulla who is famous for his learning and sanctity. I lived for a long time as his pupil, studying Logic, Philosophy, and Muhammadan Law, the subjects in which the Mulla was particularly proficient. When my absence from my native place became too long, I received several letters and messages from my parents, asking me to give up my studies and return home. At last I acceded to their pressing demands and came to my native village. There I stayed for a long time with my parents; but as I was always desirous to pursue my studies, I was meditating on my return to Pusht, or to go down to India.

In the meantime I met one Abdulquddus of Kohistan, who was returning from India. He told me that a DÁr-ul-u’lÛm (House of Sciences) had been opened at Lahore, the capital of the Punjab, where every branch of learning was taught, and that it was superintended by Dr. L., who being himself a proficient scholar of Arabic and Persian, was a patron of learning and a warm supporter of students from foreign countries. I was accompanied by two pupils of mine, named Sher Muhammad and BurhÁnuddin; and I started together with them from my native village. We passed through the territory of Dir, which is governed by Nawab Rahmatulla Khan. The Qazi of that place was an old acquaintance of mine, and he persuaded me to stop my journey, and promised to introduce me to the Nawab, and procure for me a lucrative and honourable post. I declined his offer, and continued my journey. The next territory we entered in was that of Nawab Tore Mian Khan, who reigns over eight or nine hundred people. After staying there some days we reached Kanan Gharin, which was governed jointly by Nawabs Fazl Ahmad and Bayazid Khan. After two days’ march we came to Chakesur, which was under a petty chief named Suhe Khan. Here we were told that there are two roads to India from this place—one, which is the shorter, is infested with robbers; and the other, the longer one, is safe; but we were too impatient to waste our time, and decided at once to go by the shorter way, and proceeded on our journey. We met, as we were told, two robbers on the road, who insisted on our surrendering to them all our baggage. But we made up our minds to make a stand, though we were very imperfectly armed, having only one “tamancha” among three persons. In the conflict which ensued, one of the robbers fell, and the other escaped; but Burhanuddin, one of our party, was also severely wounded, and we passed the night on the banks of a neighbouring stream, and reached next day Ganagar Sirkol Jatkol, where we halted for eight or nine days. In this place the sun is seen only three or four times a year, when all the dogs of the village, thinking him an intruding stranger, begin to bark at him. Burhanuddin, having recovered there, went back to his home, and I, with the other companion, proceeded to the Punjab, and passing through the territory of a chief, named ShÁlkhan, entered the British dominions. On arriving at Lahore we were told that Dr. L. was not there, and my companion, too impatient to wait, went down to Rampur, and I stayed at Lahore.” He then gave an account of—

THE KOHISTÁN (OR MOUNTAINOUS COUNTRY).
(A Different Country from one of the Same Name near Kabul.)

Boundaries.—It is bounded on the north by ChitrÁl, Yasin, and Hunza, on the east by Chilas, Kashmir, and a part of Hazara; on the south by YaghistÁn (or wild country); on the west by Swat and YaghistÁn.

It is surrounded by three mountainous ranges running parallel to each other, dividing the country into two parts (the northern part is called GabriÁl). The Indus flows down through the country, and has a very narrow bed here, which is hemmed in by the mountains.

The northern part, which is called GabriÁl, has only two remarkable villages—KandyÁ, on the western side of the river, and Siwa on the eastern; and the southern part contains many towns and villages:—

On the eastern side of the river,—
	Town.	Name of influential Malak (Landowner).
(1)	Ladai	MachÚ.
(2)	Kolai	Shah Said.
(3)	Palas (9,000 pop.)	Lachur.
(4)	MarÍn	Karm KhÁn.
On the western side of the river,—
	Town.	Name of influential Malak
(5)	Batera
(6)	Patan (8,000 pop.)	Qudrat Ali.
(7)	Chakarga
(8)	Ranotia

That part of YaghistÁn which bounds Kohistan on the west is divided into (1) Thakot, which is governed by ShalkhÁn, and (2) DishÁn, which is under Ram Khan; and that part of YaghistÁn which bounds it on the south is divided into three valleys,—

(1)	Alahi,	governed by	Arsalan Khan.
(2)	Nandiyar,	”	Zafar Khan.
(3)	TikrÁÍ,	”	Ghaffar Khan (has also two cannons).

Between the southern part of Kohistan and Alahi, in the eastern corner, there is a plain, of a circular form, surrounded on all sides by mountains. This plain is always covered with grass, and streams of clear and fresh water run through it. Both the grass and the water of this vast meadow are remarkable for their nourishing and digestive qualities. This plain is called “Chaur,” and is debatable ground between the Kohistanis of Ladai, Kolai, and Palas, and the Afghans of Alahi.

People.—The people of this country are not allied to the Afghans, as their language shows, but have the same erect bearing and beautiful features.

Language.—Their language is altogether different from that of their neighbours, the Afghans, as will be shown by the following comparison:—

Kohistani.	Pushto (the Afghan Language).
1. To-morrow night to Lahore I will go.	1. To-morrow night to Lahore I will go.
Douche rate Lahore bajanwa.	Saba shapa ba Lahore shazam.
2. Thou silent be.	2. Thou silent be.
Tohe chut guda.	Tah chup shai.
3. Prepare, ye young men.	3. Prepared be, O young men.
Jubti masha.	Saubhal she zalmÚ.

There is a song very current in Kohistan which begins,—

Palas kulal mariga, Patane jirga hotiga, Johle johal madado propÁr asÁli = “In Palas a potter was killed, in Patan the jirga (or tribal assembly) sat.”

“The corrupted (Jirga of Malaks) took a bribe, and retaliation was ignored.” The Afghans are called Pathans.

Religion.—They have been converted to IslÁm since four or five generations, and they have forsaken their old religion so completely that no tinge of it now remains; and when a Kohistani is told that they are “nau-Muslims,” that is, “new Muhammadans,” he becomes angry.

Muslim learning, and the building of mosques have become common in Kohistan, and now we find twenty or thirty learned mullas in every considerable town, besides hundreds of students, studying in mosques.

Dress.—Their national dress consists of a woollen hat, brimmed like that of Europeans, and a loose woollen tunic having a long ?? ?????? along the right breast, so that one can easily get out the right hand to wield one’s arms in a fight. Their trousers are also made of wool and are very tight. In the summer they wear a kind of leathern shoes borrowed from the Afghans, but in the winter they wear a kind of boots made of grass (the straw of rice) reaching to the knees. They call it “pÁjola.”

Till very lately their only arms were a small “khanjar” (dagger), bows and arrows; but they have borrowed the use of guns and long swords from the Afghans.

The dress of their women consists of a loose woollen head-dress with silken fringes, a woollen tunic and blue or black trousers of cotton cloth, which they call “shakara.” Generally their women work with their husbands in the corn-fields, and do not live confined to their houses.

Government.—They have no chiefs like the Afghans, but influential Malaks lead them to battle, who are paid no tribute, salary, etc.

When an enemy enters their country they whistle so sharply that the sound is heard for miles; then the whole tribe assembles in one place for the defence of their country, with their respective Malaks at their heads.

Mode of Living, and other Social Customs.—In winter they live in the valleys, in houses made of wood and stones; but in summer they leave their houses in the valleys for those on the peaks of mountains, and the mass of the population spends the summer in the cooler region; but those who cultivate the land live the whole day in the valley, and when night comes go up to their houses on the heights. Their food is the bread of wheat, and milk furnished by their herds of cattle (gaÓmesh, cows, goats, and sheep), which is their sole property. There are no regular BazÁrs even in the large villages; but the arrival of a merchant from India is generally hailed throughout the country. The woollen cloth which they use generally is manufactured by them.

Marriage.—Very lately there was a custom amongst them that the young man was allowed to court any girl he wished; but now, from their contact with the Afghans, the system of “betrothal” at a very early age is introduced, and the boy does not go till his marriage to that part of the village in which the girl betrothed to him lives. The Kohistanis say that they have learned three things from the Afghans:—

(1) The use of leathern shoes,

(2) The use of long swords and guns,

(3) The system of betrothal.

III. A ROUGH SKETCH OF KHATLÁN (KOLÁB) AND ADJOINING COUNTRIES.[114]

By Maulvi Najmuddin, a Theologian and Poet from KolÁb.

Names of Manzils (Stations) From Kolab to the Punjab.

??????? ??	(1)	Kolab.
?????? ??	(2)	Sayad. Situated on this side of the Amoo, and belongs to Badakhshan.
???? ?????	(3)	Yan-QalÁ.
???????? ??	(4)	ChahyÁb. Governed then (18 years ago) by Sultan Azdahar, son of Yusuf Ali KhÁn.
????? ??? ??	(5)	Dashti-sabz. A halting-place.
??????? ??	(6)	RustÁq. Governed then by Ismail KhÁn, son of Yusuf Ali KhÁn.
????? ??? ??	(7)	Kizil Dara.
?????????? ??	(8)	ElkÁshÁn. The Himalaya begins.
????? ??? ??	(9)	Átin Jalab. Here the river Kokcha[115] is crossed.
????? ???? ??	(10)	Dasht-e-sufed.
????? ??????	(11)	FaÍzabad. Capital of Badakhshan; governed then by JahandÁr Shah; is situated on the river KokchÁ.
?????? ??	(11)	RubÁt.
????? ??????	(12)	Dashti FarÁkh.
??????? ??	(13)	WardÚj. Contains a mine of sulphur.
	(14)	Names are forgotten.
	(15)	Names are forgotten.
??????? ??	(16)	ZibÁq. Peopled by Shi’as (or rather MulÁis).
???? ?????	(17)	Deh GÔl. The frontier village of BadakhshÁn; only a kind of inn.
?????? ??	(18)	Sanghar. A halting-place.
??????? ??	(19)	ChitrÁl. Governed then by Aman-ul-mulk (as now).
??????? ??	(20)	SarghÁl.
???????? ??	(21)	Rubatak.
????? ??	(22)	DÍr. Governed then by Ghazan KhÁn.
?????? ??	(23)	Swat.
??????? ??	(24)	Peshawar.

That part of the country lying at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains, which is bounded on the north by Kokand and Karatigan, on the east by Durwaz, on the south by Badakhshan and the Amu, on the west by Sherabad and Hissar (belonging to Bukhara) is called Khatlan ?????????. KolÁb, a considerable town containing a population of about ten thousand, is situated at the distance of five miles from the northern bank of the Amu, and is the capital of the province. The other towns of note are Muminabad ?????? ??????, Daulatabad ????????????, Khawaling ??????????, Baljawan ??????????, and SarchashmÁ ??????????.

The country, being situated at the foot of mountains, and being watered by numerous streams, is highly fertile. The most important products are rice, wheat, barley, kharpazÁ, etc.; and the people generally are agricultural.

There is a mine of salt in the mountains of ??????? ?????? Khawaja Mumin; and the salt produced resembles the Lahori salt, though it is not so pure and shining, and is very cheap.

Cattle breeding is carried on on a great scale, and the wealth of a man is estimated by the number of cattle he possesses. There is a kind of goat in this country which yields a very soft kind of wool (called Tibit); and the people of Kolah prepare from it hoses and a kind of turban, called Shamali (from shamal, the northern wind, from which it gives shelter).

Religion.—Generally the whole of the population belongs to the Sunni sect (according to the Hanafi rite).

Tribes.—The population of the country is divided into Laqai, Battash, and Tajiks. The Laqais live in movable tents (khargah) like the Kirghiz, and lead a roving life, and are soldiers and thieves by profession. The Battashes live in villages, which are generally clusters of kappÁs (thatched cottages), and are a peaceful and agricultural people. The Tajiks live in the towns, and are mostly artisans.

Language.—Turki is spoken in the villages and a very corrupt form of Persian in the towns. Most of the words are so twisted and distorted that a Persian cannot understand the people of the country without effort.

Government.—The country is really a province of BukhÁrÁ; but a native of Kolab, descended from the Kapchaqs by the father’s and from the Laqais by the mother’s side, became independent of BukharÁ. After his death, his four sons, Sayer Khan, Sara Khan, Qamshin Khan, Umra Khan, fought with one another for the crown; and Sara Khan, having defeated the other three, came to be the Chief of the province, but was defeated by an army from BukharÁ and escaped to Kabul.

When Najmuddin left his country, it was governed by a servant of the court of BukhÁrÁ.

The houses are generally built of mud, cut into smooth and symmetrical walls, and are plastered by a kind of lime called guch. Burnt bricks are very rare, and only the palace of the governor is made partially of them. The walls are roofed by thatch made of “damish” (reeds), which grow abundantly on the banks of the Amoo.

The dress consists of long, flowing choghÁs (stuffed with cotton) and woollen turbans. The Khatlanis wear a kind of full boot which they call chamush, but lately a kind of shoe is introduced from Russia, and is called nughai.

The country is connected with Yarkand by two roads, one running through Kokand and the other through the Pamir.

The above and following accounts were in answer to questions by Dr. Leitner, whose independent researches regarding KandiÁ in 1866-72 were thus corroborated in 1881, and again in 1886, when the photographs which serve as the basis of our illustrations were taken.

IV. THE LANGUAGE, CUSTOMS, SONGS, AND PROVERBS OF GABRIÁL.

Position.—A town in KandiÁ, a part of Yaghistan (the independent, or wild, country) situated beyond the river Indus (Hawa-sinn), which separates it from ChilÁs. The country of KandiÁ extends along both sides of the Kheri GhÁ, a tributary of the Indus, and is separated from Tangir by a chain of mountains.

The town of GabriÁl is situated three days’ march from JalkÔt, in a north-west direction, and is one day’s march from Patan, in a northerly direction. Patan is the chief city of Southern KandiÁ.

Inhabitants.—The whole tract of KandiÁ can send out 20,000 fighting men. They are divided into the following castes:—

(1) ShÎn, the highest, who now pretend to be Quraishes, the Arabs of the tribe to which the Prophet Muhammad belonged. (Harif UllÁ, the GabriÁli, and Ghulam Mohammad, of Gilgit, call themselves Quraishes.)

(2) Yashkun, who now call themselves Mughals, are inferior to the ShÎn. A Yashkun man cannot marry a ShÎn woman. Ahmad Shah, the Jalkoti belonged to this caste.

3	(3)	DoeÚzgar, carpenters.	In reality these people constitute no distinct castes, but all belong to a third, the Kamin, caste.
	(4)	JolÁ, weavers.
	(5)	AkhÁr, blacksmiths.
	(6)	DÔm, musicians.
	(7)	KÁmÌn, lowest class.

The people of Northern KandiÁ (GabriÁl) are called BunzÁrÎ, and of the southern part (i.e., Patan) ManÍ, as the Chilasis are called BotÉ. A foreigner is called RarÁwi, and fellow-countryman, MuqÁmi.

Religion.—The GabriÁlis, as well as all the people of ChilÁs, Patan, and Palas, are Sunnis, and are very intolerant to the Shias, who are kidnapped and kept in slavery (Ghulam Mohammad, the Gilgiti, has been for many years a slave in ChilÁs, as Ahmad Shah reports). The GabriÁlis were converted to Muhammadanism by a saint named BÂbÂji, whose shrine is in GabriÁl, and is one of the most frequented places by pilgrims. The GabriÁlis say that this saint lived six or seven generations ago. Mir Abdulla (who is really of Afghanistan, but now lives in GabriÁl,) says that the GabriÁlis were converted to IslÁm about 150 years ago. Lately, this religion has made great progress among the people of KandiÁ generally. Every little village has a mosque, and in most of the towns there are numerous mosques with schools attached to them, which are generally crowded by students from every caste. In GabriÁl, the Mullahs or priests are, for the most part, of the ShÎn caste, but men of every caste are zealous in giving education to their sons. Their education is limited to Muhammadan law (of the Hanifite school), and Arabian logic and philosophy. Very little attention is paid to Arabic or Persian general literature and caligraphy, that great Oriental art; so little, indeed, that Harifullah and Mir Abdulla, who are scholars of a very high standard, are wholly ignorant of any of the caligraphic forms, and their handwriting is scarcely better than that of the lowest primary class boys in the schools of the Punjab.

The most accomplished scholar in KandiÁ is the high priest and chief of Patan, named Hazrat Ali, who is a ShÎn.

The people generally are peaceful, and have a fair complexion and erect bearing. Their social and moral status has lately been raised very high. Robbery and adultery are almost unknown, and the usual punishment for these crimes is death. Divorce is seldom practised; polygamy is not rare among the rich men (wadÁn), but is seldom found among the common people.

Government.—Every village or town is governed by a Council of elders, chosen from among every tribe or “taÍfa.” The most influential man among these elders for the time being is considered as the chief of the Council. These elders are either ShÎns or Yashkun. No KamÌn can be elected an elder, though he may become a MullÁ, but a Mulla-kamÌn also cannot be admitted to the Council.

The reigning Council of GabriÁl consists of 12 persons, of whom 9 are Shins and 3 Yashkuns. PatshÉ KhÂn is the present chief of the Council. The post of Chief of the Council is not hereditary, but the wisest and the most influential of the elders is elected to that post. Justice is administered by the Mullahs without the interference of the Council, whose operation is limited to inter-tribal feuds.

Customs and Manners.—Hockey on horseback, which is called “lughÂt” in GabriÁl, is played on holidays; and the place where they meet for the sport is called “lughÂt-kÁrin-jha.”

Guns are called “nÂli” in GabriÁl, and are manufactured in the town by blacksmiths.

Dancing is not practised generally, as in the other Shin countries. Only “Doms” dance and sing, as this is their profession; they play on the “surÚi” (pipe), rabÁb (harp), and sha?do (drum).

The “purdÁ” system, or “veiling” women, is prevalent among the gentry, but it is only lately that the system was introduced into this country.

When a son is born, a musket is fired off, and the father of the newborn son gives an ox as a present to the people, to be slaughtered for a general festival.

Infanticide is wholly unknown.

Marriage.—The father of the boy does not go himself, as in Gilgit, to the father of the girl, but sends a man with 5 or 6 rupees, which he offers as a present. If the present is accepted, the betrothal (lÓli) is arranged. As far as the woman is concerned the “lÓli” is inviolable. The usual sum of dowry paid in cash is 80 rupees.

A bride is called “zhiyÁn,” and the bridegroom “zhiyÁn lo.”

Language.—On account of the want of intercourse between the tribes the language of Kohistan is broken into numerous dialects; thus the structure of the dialects spoken in KandiÁ, i.e., in GabriÁl and Patan, differs from that of the language spoken in ChilÁs and Palus, i.e., in the countries situated on this side of the Indus. Harifullah, a GabriÁli, did not understand any language except his own; but Ahmad Shah, an inhabitant of JalkÔt (situated in the southern part of ChilÁs), understood GabriÁli, as he had been there for a time. Ghulam Mohammad, our Gilgiti man, who had been captured in an excursion, and had lived as a slave in ChilÁs, also thoroughly understood JalkÓti.

The language of Kohistan (as ChilÁs, KandiÁ, etc., are also called) is divided into two dialects, called ShÉnÁ and ShÚthun respectively. In the countries situated on that side of the Indus, that is in KandiÁ, ShÚthun is spoken.

The following pages are devoted to Ballads, Proverbs, Riddles, and Dialogues in the ShÚthun dialect.

Songs = GÍla. MeshÓn gÍla = men’s songs; GharÓn gÍla = female songs.

1. An Elegy.

Fifteen years ago a battle was fought between ArslÁn Khan of Kali, and Qamar Ali Khan of PÁlus, in which 300 men were killed on both sides. Phaju, on whose death the elegy is written by his sister, was one of the killed. The inhabitants of Palus are called “Sikhs,” in reproach.

RugÉ nÍle, jimÁtyÁn-kachh-dÚkÁnt,

In a green place, next a mosque, in a sitting (resting) place,

ChÁ chÁpÁr gÁla mazÉ, shahzada marÉgil

In a surrounded fort within, the prince was killed

RugÉ nÍle, jimÁtyÁn kachh, dÚkÁnt

In a green place, next a mosque, in a resting place

SheÚ wÁle, bathrÍ, sÓh virÁti walÉgil.

Bring the bier, lay it down, (so that) that heirless one may be brought to his home.

ii.

RÚge nÍle, wo ShÉrkot shar hogaÉ,

In the green place, that Sherkot, where the halting-places of guests

Diri SikÁno qatle karÉgil.

Are deserted, the Sikhs (infidels, that is the PÁlusis) slaughter committed (did).

RÚge nÍle, ShÉrkot, barÍ bigÁ hojowo,

In the green place, in Sherkot, a great fight happened to be,

Kali Khel, PhajÚ dasgÍr marÉgil.

O Kalikhel (a tribe of Kohistan) PhajÚ is captured and killed.

Translation.

1. In a green place, next the mosque, in a place of rest.

Within an enclosure the prince was killed.

In a green place, next a mosque, in a spot of rest,

Bring the bier and lay it down, to bring him home who has no heir.

2. In the green place, that SherkÔt, where the halting-place of guests

Is deserted, the Sikhs committed slaughter.

In the green place, in Sherkot, a great fight took place,

Oh, Kalikhel tribe, PhajÚ was captured and killed.

2. The following song is a chÂrbait, or quatrain, composed by QamrÁn, a Gabriali poet. The song treats of the love between Saif-ul-mulk, a prince of RÚm, and ShahparÌ (the Fairy-queen).

The first line of a charbait is called SarnÂmÂh, and the remaining poem is divided into stanzas or “KhhÀ?Áo,” consisting each of four lines. At the end of every stanza the burden of the song is repeated:

Sarnamah.—Ma hÚga musfar, mi safÁr hugÂe Hindustan waÍn

I became a stranger, my travel became towards Hindustan.

MÍ duÂ’ salÁm, duÂ’ salÁmi ahl Kohistan waÍn

My prayer-compliments, prayer-compliments, to the inhabitants of Kohistan (may go forth).

MalÁ MalÚkh thÛ, O BadrÁi tou ÍnÊ haragilua

I myself am Malukh (name of the Prince Saif-ul-mulk), O Badra, thou didst lose me.

Burden.—HÁi, MalÁ MalÚkh thÛ, O BadrÁi, chÉ MalÚkh tÎ? tÂÓ bar zÍthu

Woe, I am Malukh, O Badra, now thy Malukh from thy sorrow has lost his senses.

Stanzas.—1. Mala Malukh thu, O Badrai, MalÚkh tÎ?, tÂÓ thÚ dazÉlo

I myself am Malukh, O Badra, thy Malukh burnt has been from thy heat.

2. HyÓ nÍe? nidhÉto qarÂrÉ, MalÚkh BadrÉ wÁtbe thÚ harzÉlo

In the heart there is no ease, which Malukh after Badra has lost.

3. Be tÍ Á?s yÂrÂÚÂ, mah pai-mukhÉ Á’?s soh wÉlo?

Ours, yours, was friendship, I beardless at that time.

4. Gini kirÍ thi, hÁÊ hÁÊ, mi Azli qalam zikzithu

Why dost thou ... woe! woe! the pen of Eternity wrote so.

Burden.—5. HÁi, MalÁ MalÚkh thu, O Badrai, ChÉ Malukh tÎ? tÂÓ harzi thu.

Woe, I am Malukh, O Badra, etc., etc.

ii.

1. Gini kiri the, hae hae, mi azlÓ mazÉ lÌkh taqdÎr thÚ

Why dost thou ... woe, woe! in Eternity did Fate write so.

2. DarwÁzo? mazÁ galÁchhe dhuÎ Mato ti? darÁ? faqÎr thu

On thy gate I lit fire (like JÔgÍs), I a boy was the beggar of thy door.

3. To hikmat biu bÁz-shÂÎ thi kishÉu lÛ?go maza zanzÎr thu

By thy stratagem thou takest the eagle a prisoner in the chain of thy black locks.

4. Kisheu lÛngÁ, narai narai, panar mÛ?la bÉ the zetdu

Black locks, in strings, on thy bright face are twined.

5. Hae Mala Malukh thu....

Woe, I am Malukh, etc....

iii.

1. Kisheu lÛngÁ narai narai, panar mÛ? la ÂwizÂ? thu

Black locks in strings on thy bright face are hanging.

2. Mi la?mÛ? mazÁ karÁÉ, tiu makhchÚe gi mi armÂ? thu

In my body is the knife, thine is this deed which was my desire.

3. A’khir dhar hÉ?ti nÍmgarÉ sho? fÁni na, malÁ rawÂ? thu

At length will remain unfinished this waning (world), I now depart.

4. HyÓ mi kir sÚraÍ sÚraÍ, Jandun ginÁ thu, ma mari thu

My heart didst thou pierce in holes, where is my life, I am dead.

5. Hae Hae....

Woe, I am Malukh, etc.

iv.

1. HyÓ mi kir sÚraÍ sÚraÍ tÉrubir, te? shon niÁzah ghiu

My heart didst thou pierce throughout, by this thy spear.

2. MÁla thu mu?É, ti dalbarÁ?, lailo bÁ mi janÁzah ghiu

I am thy dead boy, thy lover, O dearest, go off from my bier.

3. KhÚn tiu g?a? hoga, ghi tulÁ nibhÁÉ ansi khÉvah ghiu

My blood is on thy neck, alas! thou didst not sit with me, being engaged in thy toilet.

4. KhÉvah kirethi zhare tin soh khiyÁl mudÁ chaizbithÚ

Thy toilet do now, now that thy remembrance of me is slackened by Time.

Matal (Masl = Proverbs).

Proverbs.—(1) ZÁnda chapÉlo razan bhiyÁ?t.

One who is struck by all, fears even a rope.

(2) Zo?o? waÉ nhÁlÉ k hurÁ zhikÁ.

Looking towards (the length of) the sheet, extend your feet.

(3) HÁte chÉ rachhÉlÚ darwÁze a?at kara.

Elephant if you keep, make your door wide.

(4) Ka?otÁl ghutÁgir, lÁwÁ? na hol kir.

The Lion attacks, the Jackal makes water.

(5) QÁ mil tillu gÛ? kaÁ?t, bÁz mil tillu mÁsÉu khÁnt.

With crow went, ate dung; with eagle went, ate flesh.

i.e. In the company of the crow you will learn to eat dung and in that of the eagle, you will eat flesh.

(6) Ta?gÁ gatam karÉ rupaÉ balyÚ?.

A penny, for collecting went, lost rupee.

(7) AÍ? tale ka?walÉ dÉthÉ, mazÉ hÁ? shÁrÁ tÚ?.

Big mouth flattery does, inwardly (in mind) breaks bones.

(8) DÚ?Í lawÁ?o karÚ mÁrch.

Two Jackals a lion kill.

(9) Dhon mazÉ ek bakrÍ budi agalu, bÛto? bakro? ethi.

In a flock, if a contagious disease to one goat come, it comes to all goats.

(10) GÚ? khuch tÁ?t so?, ghÁ?o chÁÍ hont.

Dung is spread out however much, bad smell so much more becomes.

(11) ZhÁ zhui dÁrÚ.

Brother’s remedy is brother.

(12) TÁlai? uthi, kozÁ dishÁl, tiu dÚ bo?di.

A sieve rose, to pot said, “You have two holes.”

(13) Zar bÁdshah tamam hoto?, hiyÁ bandgÁr shilÁt.

Money of the king is spent, heart of the treasurer pains.

IsholÁ (Question).

Riddles.—(1) ShÚ? ghÉlÁ chÍz thu?, che nahÁlÁ?t tasi wÁi? pashÁ?t amÁ?

Such what thing is, which they see towards it, they see themselves in it?

Answer: Mirror. ShÚ? Áhan thi. = Such mirror is.

(2) ShÚ? ghe?Á chÍz thÚ? che surat zÁnÉ thi, tilhÁ?t nai?

Such what thing is, whose figure serpent-like is, does not move?

Answer: Rope. ShÚ? rÁs thi. = Such rope is.

(3) ShÚ? ghelÁ chÍz thÚ?, a?gÁr dherÁni gellÚ, dhÚa? darya bau nikÁ?t?

Such what thing is, fire is applied to dry grass, the river of smoke flows from it.

Answer: HookÂh.

(4) ShÚ? ghÉlÁ chÍz thÚ?, che mut surtÉ warÉ nahÁle? hasÁ?t, khuro? we nahÁle ro?t?

Such what thing is, who seeing towards other body laughs, seeing towards feet, weeps?

Answer: Peacock.

SHÚTHUN.
WORDS AND DIALOGUES.

Words.

God, KhÁva?d.
fairy, khÁperÉ.
demon, div.
female demon, balÁi.
paradise, janat.
fire, a?gÁr.
earth, uzmuk.
water, wÍ.
heaven, asmÁn.
moon, yÚ?.
star, tarÁ.
darkness, tamÁÍ.
shadow, chho?l.
day, des.
light, lÁwar.
night, rÁl.
midday, mazardi.
midnight, Á?-rÁl.
evening, noshÁ?.
to-day, Ázuk des.
yesterday, bayaluk des.
to-morrow, rÁlya?k des.
heat, taÓ, tÁt.
cold, hewÁn.
flame, lÁm.
smoke, dhÚÁ?.
thunder, hagÁ-dazi-gÉ.
lightning, mili.
rain, Ájo.
drop, Ájo-tÌpo.
rainbow, bijon?.
snow, hi? yÚ?.
ice, kambuk.
hail, mÉkh.
dew, palÚs.
earthquake, bhÚnÁl.
dust, udhÚn.
pebbles, lakh-bato.
sand, sighÁl.
mud, chichÁl.
plain, maidÁn, merÁh.
valley, darÁ.
mount, khÁu.
foot of mountain, mÚndh.
river, sÍn.
wooden bridge, sÍÚ.
rivulet, uchhu.
streamlet, khÁ?.
avalanche, hi?Ál.
lake, dhÁm.
pond, dhamkalÚ.
confluence, milil.
banks, sin-kaÍ.
yonder bank, pÍr sinkai.
this bank, Ár sinkai.
a well, kohi.
country, watau.
village, gÁ?.

place, zhaÍ.
army, kauÁr.
leader, kauÁr sardÁr.
lumberdÁr, malak.
tax-gatherer, jÁm kai.
policeman, zeitÚ.
cannon, tof.
gun, nÁli.
sword, tarwÁl.
dagger, karÁi.
lance, naizÁ, shel.
powder, nÁlÁ? daru.
ball, goli.
ditches, kahe.
war, kali.
thief, lÚ.
sentinel, rÁth.
guard, chÁr.
guide, pan-pashÁ?tuk.
coward, khiÁ to.
traitor, fatandÁr.
bribe, ba?i.
prisoner, bandi.
slave, dim.
master, maulÁ.
servant, naukar.
drum, shaudo.
sheath, kÁti.
grip, kauzÁ.
bottom of sheath, kundi.
hatchet, ckhÁÍ.
file, soÁn.
smoothing iron, rambi.
scythe, li?zh.
tongs, ochhÚ?.
razor, chhÚr.
mirror, Áhin.
plough, hÓl.
oar, phiyÁ.
yoke, Ú?.
ladle, tagÚ.
kneading roller, chhagÓr.
kettle, chati.
little kettle, chedin.
stone kettle, botÁ-bhÁ?.
pan, to.
coal, phÚthe.
key, kunji.
lion, kharÁ.
shawl, shÍyÚ?.
bedding, bathÁr.
lock, sÁ?.
bolt, hul.
vineyard, dhÁ?gÁ.
stable, ghozai.
” for cattle, gÁ? zai.
” for sheep, bakro?-ghuzÁl.
water mill, yÁ?zh.
iron peg, kili.
bullet-bag, koti.
powder-flask, darÚ kothi.
iron and flint, tÍz.
tinder, khÚ.
bow, shÁe.
arrow, kÁ?Ó.
quiver, kÁ?Ó bha?.
ship, jahÁz.
boat, he?i.

century, shol kÁla.
year, kÁla.
half-year, a?a-kÁla.
three months, sha-yÚ?.
week, sÁt-dÉs.
spring, basÁ?.
summer, barish.
autumn, sharal.

Lunar Muhammadan Months.

KhudÁ tÁlÁ yÚ?, Rajab.
Shahqadar, Shaaban.
Rozo? yÚ?, Ramazan.
Lukut (smaller) eed yÚ?, Shawal.
KhÁli yÚ?, Zi QÁad.
GhÁÍ? eed yÚ?, Zi Haj.
Hasan Husain yÚ?, Muharram.
ChÁr bheyÁ? (four sisters), four months of Rabiulawwal: Rabi 2, Jamadi 1, Jamadi 2.

man, mÁ?sho.
male, mÉsh.
woman, gharo?.
new-born child, chinot.
girl, mati.
virgin, bikra-mati.
bachelor, chÁur.
old man, zÁrÁ.
old woman, zÍrÍ.
puberty, zuÁni.
life, zhigi.
death, mÁreg.
sickness, rÁ?s.
sick, najÚr.
health, mith rÁhat.
relation, zhÁvÁ.
brotherhood, sak zhÁ.
friend, yÁr.
aunt, mÁfi.
father, abÁ.
paternal uncle, pichÁ.
mother, yÁ.
brother, zhÁ.
sister, bhiyÚ?.
son, pÚsh.
daughter, dhÍ.
daughter’s husband, zamÁ zhÚ.
grandson, pÁzho.
granddaughter, pozhi.
nephew, zhÁ-lichh.
husband, baryÚ.
wife’s brother, shÁbri.
wife’s mother, ichosh.
wife’s father, shor.
pregnancy, ghaleÍ?.
nurse, razÁÍ mahal.
priest, molÁ?.
mosque, jamÁat.
pupil, shÁgar.
sportsman, dhÁuzÍr.
goldwasher, keryÁ?.
peasant, dÉqÁn.
horse-stealer, gÁlwÁ?.
robber, lÚ.
brick-baker, ustÁ kÁr.
butcher, qasÁbi.
shepherd, payÁl.
cowherd, go-chÁr.
groom, kharbal.

body, surtÉ adÚmÁ.
skin, chÁm.
bones, hÁr.
marrow, mÉtho.
flesh, masÉ?.
fat, miyÚn.
blood, rÁt.
veins, rage.
head, shish.
occiput, shishÁ?-kokar.
brain, metho.
curls, cha?dÚ.
tresses, pÉtÚ.
forehead, tÁl.
eyes, a?chhi.
eyebrow, ruzÍ.
eyelids, papÁÍ?.
pupil, machhÁ.
tears, Á?chhe.
ears, kanÁ.
hearing, shÚo?.
cheeks, hargel.
chin, dÁÍ.
nose, nathÚr.
nostrils, shÚli.
odour, ghÁ?.
sneezing, zhitÁ.
upper lip, bul-dhÚt.
nether lip, mÚ?-dhÚt.
mouth, Ái?.
taste, kho?d.
licking, chara.
sucking, chÚsho?.
beard, dÁÍ-bÁl.
moustaches, phu?ge.
teeth, danÁ.
tongue, zÍb.
jaw, tÁlÚ.
throat, marri.
neck, shÁk.
shoulder, phyÁ.
back, dah.
fore-arm, mutÁ.
palm, kÁt-zil.
nails, na?hÁ.
thumb, a?gÚ.
middle finger, mazwÁl angÚi.
breast, he? li.
lungs, phap.
liver, shÚr.
kidneys, jukÁ.
breath, dhÉ?s.
coughing, khÁ?g.
spleen, shiyÁ?.
belly, vari.
side, shÍgÁt.
ribs, pash.
thighs, sethi.
knee, kÚtÁ.
feet, khurÁ.
sole, shÁ?dÁ.

anger, rush.
aversion, achhÁq.
boastful, amÁ-tikÚ.
cheating, t?ag.
courage, hyo-kura.
cowardice, bhiyÁto.

blind, shÉo.
deaf, borÁ.
dumb, chÁo.
dwarf, khÁto?.
giant, zhigo.
hunch-back, dakoro.
stammering, hup-hup.
one-eyed, ek-ÁchhÁ.

bed, shi-Ú?.
broom, lÁhÚli.
canal, yÁh.
fort, kalÁ.
house, bÁo.
ladder, pÁrcha?gi.
street, durro.
water-jug, dhomb-lÚ.
wall, kÚ?.
window, bÁ-Ú?.

guest, malÁshi.
host, malÁsh-khais.
breakfast, vÉpli.
midday meal, ashari-goli.
luncheon, mazardi?-goli.
evening meal, bilalÚ-ki-goli.
sour dough, kham birÁ.
light, lawÁr.

I, mÁ.
thou, tÚ.
he, Ú?.
we, amÉ?.
you, tus.
they, Ái?.

great, ghÉro?.
small, lakho.
much, che.
beautiful, sugÁ.
ugly, adash.
clean, sÁf.
dirty, mulgÁn.
deep, khato?.
rich, poyandÁ.
poor, kÁm toÁ?.
miserly, sakh.

oath, sÚgÁu.

Dialogues.

What is your name? ti? nÁ gi thÚ?

Where do you come from? tÚ gulÁ? ethÚ?

Where do you go to? tÚ gulÁ? byÁ? thÚ?

When did you come? tÚ kal ethÚ?

Come quickly, zino É.

Go slowly, suple bhÁ.

Beat him now, as uskÉ? koteh.

Kill him afterwards, as hilÉk pÁsrih mÁreh.

How is the road between this and there? u?gÁÍ shÁlgÁi har pÁ? goshe the?

Very bad and dangerous, chaÍ kharÁb thi, chai gi a? thi.

Very easy; a plain, and nothing to fear, chaÍ hasÁn thi; bodi maiaÁn kingi bhÍl nithi.

Is there any water on the road? paÚ mazÉ wi thÚ ya na thÚ (way-in water is or not is)?

Why should there not be any? ginÉ nithÚ?

There is plenty, and good water, cho thÚ, sains thÚ.

The water is bad and salty, achhak thÚ, lÚsulÁe milÁl thÚ.

There is a big river on the road, which you will not be able to cross, pÁnda mazÉ, ghÁi sin thi, pir-khingÍ (on that side) ni bihÁ?t.

Why? Is there no bridge? ginah? sÍÚ nithÚ?

There was a rope bridge, but to-day it broke, bilÁlÁ sÍÚ Á?s, Áz sher thi.

Can it be not repaired? sÁ?dhat nai É??

There are no men for two days’ march all round. There are neither twigs nor ropes to be got. How am I to do? shÁsh taraf se mÁsh nithu, do? di? so mazalÓ-mazÉ, gishÍ sandhyÍ?

How can he come; he has gone about some business, sÓh gishÉ ÉshÓto, soh kÁmi bÉjthÚ.

Go! be silent. Bring him at once, or else I shall be very angry, bÓh! chubbÓ; mÁ khapÁ hothiÚ, zino bÁdi Á.

What do you want? tÚ gi lukhÁt?

I do not want anything except to drink and eat, mÀ ki?geh ni lukha?t, khÁ? pÚr lukhÁ?t.

I have nothing; what can I give you? minge kÍngÉ nithÚ, mÁ gi dÁwÁ?

First of all bring cold water, buttÓ mÚ t?o tÚ mit?a wi Á.

Afterwards bring milk, ghi, butter, paitÓ? shÍr, ghil, shisha?.

How many days will you stay here? tÚ ondhÁ? ketÚk desi bhayÁ?to?

I will start to-morrow early, mÁ rÁli bÉ?to.

Get coolies (porters), petwÁre Á.

How many coolies do you want? ketÚk petwÁre pakÁr thÚ?

The road is full of stones, pÁ?dÁ maze batÁh chaÍ va?te.

Your loads are very heavy, tÍ? aÍ? (-this) petÉ chaÍ abur thÍ?.

The coolies will not be able to carry them, za? petwarÉ bÚÍ ner ha?thÉ.

I beg that you will make your loads a little lighter, and then you will arrive quicker, mi arzÍ thi, as petÉ hilÉk achhrÁ; amÉn hÁlo chhÍl.

Be patient; I will pay for all; I will give the rate to the coolies. If you act well I will reward you, sabar karÉ; mÓ?h buto mazdÚri dashul; tÉ? mi?h kÁm karlu, mÁ tighÉ inÁm dashut.

Get the horses ready, ghÚÍ tayÁr karÁh.

Put the saddle on, ghÚÍ tal kÁt?Í sambhÁl karÉ.

Take the saddle and bridle off, ghÚÍ na malÁni alÚ karÉ, hÁ? kÁthÉ.

Catch hold of this, as dhÁÍ.

Do not lose it, as phat nirÉ.

Do not forget what I say, mÍ? bÁl (my word) nÉ ushÁ.

Hear! look! take care, kÁno hin shÚnÁ, anchhÍ nÁhlÍ l fikar karÉ.

Tie the horse to that tree, gho as gÁÍ mÉl gÁ?dÁ.

Keep watch all night, rÁl chokidÁrÍ karÁh.

Are there many thieves here? ÚndÁ lÚ chÉ thÉ?

What is this noise? shÚn awÁz kasi? thÚ??

Who are you? tÚ kÁ? thÚ??

Get away from here, u?d gÁÍ bÁh.

Shoot him the moment he comes near, u?gÁÍ ÍgÁlo, asÍ? tumakÁh deh.

This man is treacherous, Ú? mÁsh bepat thÚ.

Don’t let him go, as mÁsh Ú?dÚ phat niyÁrÉh.

Bind him, imprison him, enchain him; put him into stocks, as ga?dÁh; asi? hÁthe zanzÍr gÁlÁh; as kundi galÁh.

I am going to sleep, hÚ Í? mÁ sÚtÁ bijÁ?taÉ.

Don’t make a noise, chozuk niyÁreh.

How many people are there in the village? as gÁ?Ó maz katÚ ma?sh thÉ?

I have not counted them, mÉ? ishmÁr niyÁrchÍ.

Is the soil fertile or sterile? dol nÍl thÉ, gÍh shÍshi thÉ?

Is there much fruit? mÉvÁ chaÍ thÉ?

Is there much grain in the village? as watnÉ maz Án cho thÚ?

How many taxes do you pay in the year? ek kÁl maz ketÚk masÚl diyÁ?t tus?

Are you satisfied? tÚ khush-hÁl thÚ?

How is your health? tÚ u?dÁ? arÁm thÚ?

I am in good health, arÁm thÚ.

Good temper, tabyÁt sÁf.

Bad temper, tabyÁt asak.

God bless you, khudÁÉ tigÉ barakat dÉ.

May God lengthen your life, khudÁe ti? umar chai kare.

My name is Gharib Shah, mÍ? nÁ GharÍb ShÁh thÚ.

My age is twenty years, mÍ? umar bÍsh kÁlÁh thÚ.

My mother is dead; my father is alive; mÍ? mhÁ?li marigai, mÍ? mahÁlo zanÁ thÚ.

How is the road, good or bad? pÁn mit thi ghi achak thi?

In one or two places it is good, in others bad, ek dÚ zÁÉ mit thÍ?, ek dÚ zÁÉ achak thÍ?.

How did you come from Chilas? tÚ ChilasÚ? gishÉÍ thÚ?

I could not get a horse, I went on foot, gho nyans, maton, khuron tal ethÚ.

Are the mountains on the road high? pÁn maze khÁnÁ Úchat thÉ?

When are you going back? tÚ kaiÁ bashotÁ?

I am poor, mÁ gharÍh thÚ.

We kill all infidels, bÉ bud kafra marÁ? the.

I have come to learn the language, mÁ zÍb chhitÁÍ? ÉthÚ.

What do I care about? mi? gi parwÁ thÚ?

I make my prayers five times every day, mÁ har dÉs panjwaqtÚ? nimÁz karÁ? thÉ.

Where did you come from? tu gulÁ? ethÚ?

Come into the house, bÁ khunÍ É.

Sit at your ease, mitho bhaÍ.

Are you well? tÚ mit thÚ?

Are your children well? tÍu chinomati jÚ? thÉ?

Is your sister’s son well? tÍu sazÚ jÚ? thÉ?

Are you very ill? tÚ cho ÁchÁq (sick) thÉ?

May God restore you to health! khudÁ tÁlÁ tÚ jo? kÉrÉ.

Light the fire, angÁr guyÁh.

Cook the food, goli pazÁh.

Spread the bed, bathÁri karÉ.

It is very cold, chaÍ lÚÍ thÉ.

It is very hot, chaÍ tut thÉ.

Put on your clothes, zÚr shÁ.

Catch hold of the horse, gho dhaÍ.

Look at that man, pÍshas mÁsh nahÁlÁ.

Take care, fikar karÉ.

You will fall, tÚ ullÁ shat.

Take a good aim, mit?i nazir karÉ.

I will give you help, ma timÁl madat karÉshat.

I am hungry, bring food that I may eat, mÁ hÚshoshat, goli Á, khÉij.

I am thirsty, bring water that I may drink, mÁ chÚha hÚga, wi Á, pÚmÁ.

I am sleepy now, I will go to sleep, migÉ nÍzh Íge, nizh karÁ?thÚ.

What do you call this in your language? tus shas chizÍ taÍ zÍb hÍn gimÁ manÁth?

How much is the produce of this land? as zaÍmuz ketÚk paidÁ hÚnt?

Can you sing? tige gila e?the?

V.—ANTHROPOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON DARDS AND KAFIRS IN DR. LEITNER’S SERVICE.

(Measurements in Centimetres.)

1. ABDUL GHAFÛR, KAFIR OF KAMÔZ, about 24 or 25 years of age.

Height, 168·5; hair, black; eyes, hazel; colour of face, ruddy; colour of body, very light brown; narrow forehead; high instep; big boned; length round the forehead, biggest circumference of head, 53·75; protruding and big ears; square face; long nose, slightly aquiline; good regular teeth; small beard; slight moustache and eyebrows; distance between eyebrows, ordinary; good chest; fine hand; well-made nails. Weight, 10 st. 2¾ lbs.

2. KHUDAYÁR, YASHKUN NÁGYRI; age 24.[116]

Height, 182; colour of body, light yellow brown; round the head, 52·5; teeth, good, regular; nose, very slightly aquiline; little growth on upper lip; none on cheeks; long, straight, coarse black hair; eyes, hazel; ears, not so protruding; better-proportioned forehead; small hand; good instep; foot bigger, in proportion, than hand (not so good as other’s hand); 80 pulse. Weight, 9 st. 10 lbs.

3. IBRAHÍM, RÔNO, NAGYRI; age 34.

Height, 162·3; round the head, 56·5; eyes, dark brown; big hands and feet; instep, good; colour, brown; good muscular foot; strong arms; hair, black; plentiful growth on upper lip; nose, aquiline; broad nostrils; full lips. Weight, 10 st. 12 lbs. (No. 10 on Drawing 1 of Appendix IV.)

4. MATAVALLI, YASHKUN OF HUNZA; age 30.[116]

Height, 164·0; very hairy, including hands; round the head, 54·0; head, pyramidal pointed; sinister countenance; very big hands and feet; thin lips; great moustache, coarser hair; more flat-soled than rest. Weight, 9 st. 8½ lbs. (Full details in “Comparative Table.”)

5. SULTAN ALI, YASHKUN OF NAGYR; age 35.

Height, 165·25; round the head 53·75; square head; retroussÉ, small nose; small mouth; red beard, plentiful; black hair; brown eyes; very big hands and feet, also instep. Weight, 9 st. 12 lbs. (No. 11 on Drawing 1 of Appendix IV.)

6. KHUDADAD OF NAGYR; age 30.

Height, 163·3; round the head, 54·4; stupid expression; big chest; ordinary hands and feet; low forehead; rising head; very muscular; eyes, brown; complexion, brown; thickish nose; very narrow forehead; underhung jaw; lots of hair. Weight, 9 st. 12 lbs. (No. 3 on Drawing 1 of Appendix IV.)

7. HATÁMU OF NAGYR; age 16.

Height, 162·1; round the head, 54·4 (broad head); low Grecian forehead; small nose; eyes, dark brown; light brown complexion; small hands and feet; regular, white teeth. Weight, 7 st. 13 lbs. (No. 4 of above Drawing.)

8. GHULAM MUHAMMAD, SHÎN OF GILGIT; age 38.[116]

Height, 161·0; round the head, 54; beard, prematurely grey; lost second incisor; small hands and feet; fair instep; brown eyes and complexion; nose, straight; ears all right. Weight 8 st. 5 lbs.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL.

ETHNOLOGICAL.
(See also Drawing 1 of Appendix IV.)

Gilgiti (Ghulman Muhammad).

Nagyri (Khudayar).

Hunza Man (Matavalli).

A Gabriali Student and two Messengers (A Chitrali and a Yasini), from a Brother of the late Mihtar Aman-ul-Mulk, Ruler of Chitral.

FURTHER MEASUREMENTS OF THE ABOVE MEN BY THE SCHWARZ SYSTEM.

(See explanations of these numbers further on, page 5.)

Numbers by Schwarz.	1. Abdul-GhafÛr, KamÔz KÁfir.	2. Khudayar Yashkun, Nagyri.	3. IbrahÎm, Nagyri RÓno.	4.[117] Matavalli, Hunza Yashkun.	5. Sultan Ali, Yashkun, Nagyri.	6. KhudadÁd Nagyri.	7. Hatamu Nagyri.	8. Ghulam Muhamad, Gilgiti ShÎn.
28	30	26·7·5	29·2	31·5	25·5	28·5	24·7	29·5
29	15	24·7·5	14	13·5	14	11·75	31·1	15·5
30	14·5	13·5	14·5	13·6	13·7·5	14·2	12·7	14
31	10·2·5	8·7·5	9·5	9·6	8·7·5	9·2	8·1	9·1
32	3·7·5	3·5	3	3·7·5	3·25	3·3	3·8	3·9

34	3·9	4	4·6	4·1	3·6	3·6	3·4	3·5
35	5·5	4	4·7·5	5	4·1	5·5	4·5	4·8
36	14	11·2	11·7·5	11·25	11·2	11·2	11·1	10·2
37	18·7·5	20·2·5	20·6	20·8	19	20·75	19·2	18·5

39	46	44·7·5	48	44·5	44·5	48·6	41·5	39·6

DESCRIPTION OF JAMSHÉD, THE SIAH PÔSH KAFIR.

JamshÊd of KatÁr, the nephew of General Feramorz, the renowned Kafir General in the service of the late Amir Sher AlÍ of Kabul, was a confidential orderly both in the service of the Amir Sher AlÍ and in that of YakÚb Khan, whose cause he espoused against that of his father, in consequence of which, when his master was imprisoned, he fled to Rawalpindi, where he came to me. He had witnessed some of the most exciting scenes in modern Kabul history, had risen to the rank of Major, and had served with Prince Iskandar of HerÁt, whom he afterwards again met in London.

In 1872 I published from JamshÊd’s dictation an account of the “Adventures of JamshÈd, a Siah PÔsh Kafir, and his wanderings with Amir Sher AlÍ,” and also “a statement about slavery in Kabul, etc.,” which contained the names of places and tribes previously unknown to Geographers and Ethnographers, as well as historical and political material, the value of which has been proved by subsequent events. I took him with me to England, not only on account of the interest which exists in certain scientific quarters as regards the “mysterious race” of which he was a member, but also in order to draw the attention of the Anti-slavery Society and of Government to the kidnapping of Kafirs—the supposed “poor relations” of the European—which is carried on by the Afghans.

His measurement was taken, according to the systems of both Broca and Schwarz (of the Novara expedition), by Dr. Beddoe, and the type appeared to approach nearest to that of the slavonized Macedonians of the Herzegovina, like one of whose inhabitants he looked, thus creating far less attention, especially when dressed À l’europÉenne in Europe, than he did at Lahore, where Lord Northbrook saw him. The Anti-slavery Society sent him to the Chiefs of KatÁr with a communication to the effect that Englishmen strongly disapproved of slavery, and that they should represent their case to the Panjab Government. A curious incident in connection with his presence in England may be mentioned. It was the 6th May, 1874, the day of the “Two Thousand”; the result of the Newmarket race was eagerly expected, when the Globe came out with the following titles placed on the posters: “Result of the ‘Two Thousand.’” “An Interesting Race” (the latter was an article on the race of the Siah PÔsh Kafirs). The result may be imagined. Hundreds of Welshers plunged into an account of the Siah PÔsh Kafirs under the notion that they were going to have a great treat in a telegraphic description of a Newmarket race. I was informed that the wrath of the sporting roughs who besieged the office was awful when they found out their mistake. Poor JamshÊd was seen across the Panjab border by one of my Munshis, but returned some months later to Lahore, whence he found his way to Brussa, in Asia Minor. It is supposed that he took service in the Turkish Army, but he has not since been heard of. As I intend to publish an account of the KÁfirs of KatÁr (now, I fear, all Nimchas, or half-Muhammadans), Gambir, etc., I reserve the interesting statements of JamshÊd to their proper Section in my “KÁfiristÁn.”

JamshÊd, the Siah PÔsh Kafir,
Brought to England by Prof. Leitner in 1872.

COMPARATIVE TABLE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON SOME OF THE DARDS IN DR. LEITNER’S SERVICE.

(The first five and the last are described by the French system; the sixth by the German system, put into millimetres and centimetres respectively.)

		A MATAVALLI.[118]	B KHUDÁYÁR.	C GHULAM MUHAMMAD.	D GHULÁM.	E ABDULLAH.	F MIR ABDULLAH.[119]	G[120] DR. LEITNER.
Date and place of observation		2-6-81: Simla	2-6-81: Simla	2-6-81: Simla	—— Simla	2-6-81: Simla	23-3-86: Lahore	2-6-81: Simla
Age; sex; profession		32 yrs.; m.; peasant and warrior	21 yrs.; m.; student	40 yrs.; m.; agriculturist	18 yrs.; m.	40 yrs.; m.; agriculturist	30 yrs.; m.; Jurist	40 yrs.
Caste, tribe, and tongue		Yashkun; KhajunÁ; Burishki	Yashkun; KhajunÁ; Burishki	ShinÁ	ShÎn (Kashmir subject)	ShÎn; (Kashmir subject)	Dard; GabriÁl
Religion and birthplace		Shiah; (probably MulÁi) Hunza	Shiah; Nagyr	Shiah; Gilgit	Sunni; GurukÔt near Astor	Sunni; GurukÔt near Astor	Sunni
Thin, medium, or stout		medium	thin	medium		medium	medium	stout
Weight[121]		9 st. 8½ lb.	9 st. 10 lb.	8 st. 5 lb.				14 st. 4 lb.
Colours[122]	skin, exposed parts	53 (red brown)	54	38	52	37	forehead & cheeks, reddish-brown	25 (very fair)
	” covered parts	21 (light red brown)	47	38	53	37	lips, pink; covered parts, lighter	24 (very fair)
	hair	48 (black)	42	grey	48	48	black	fair
	beard	41 (black)	43	grey	48	48	red-brown	fair; slightly red
	eyes	3 (light brown)	3	2	1	1	iris: dark brown; ball: white, bluish, injected	14 (blue)
Hair: straight, wavy, curly, frizzled, or woolly		straight	curly	curly	curly	curly	black, short, curly	curly
Beard: thick (abundant), scanty, or none		thick, long and stiff	scanty	very thick	thick	very thick	straight; woolly; brown-reddish	abundant
Skin: smooth, a little, or very hairy		very hairy	a little hairy	a little hairy	very hairy	very hairy	hairy on breast, little on arms	very hairy
Shape of profile of nose (p. 111)		No. 2 (nearly quite straight)	5	5	5	5, very high nostrils	convex	5
Lips: thick, medium, or thin		medium (arched)	medium	medium	thin	medium	thin, arched	medium
” straight, or turned outwards		straight	straight	straight	straight	little turned outward	thin, straight	thin, straight
Teeth: large, medium, or small		small	medium	large	small	small	small	medium
” incisors, straight (vertical), slanting, or very slanting		straight (incisors wide apart)	straight	straight	straight	straight	straight	vertical
The set of teeth: very good, good, medium, bad, or very bad		good (but dirty)	very good	good	very good	very bad	transparent, very white	medium
Skull	Diameters: antero-posterior, maximum	195 millim.	183	186	187	193	191	201
	” ” inial	192 ”	180	187	185	183	186	200
	” transverse, maximum	144 ”	144	144	144	140	141	163
	” auriculo-vertical (fr. m.)	116 ”	110	123	110	114	119	126
	Curves: inio-frontal	345 ”	315	325	335	345		340
	” horizontal	540 ”	525	540	540	520	530	600
	” transverse sub-auricular	330 ”	315	320	335	320		330
	facial angle (Camner)	81 ”				81		73
From point of chin to edge of hair		185 ”				177	191	193
” ophryon to alveolar point		95 ”				75		94
Breadth between zygomata		139 ”				132	136	133
Length of nose		48 ”				52	59	54
Breadth of nose		31 ”				39	35	33
From ophryon to root of nose		12 ”				20		16
Width between inner angle of eyes						38	34	35
” ”cheekbones		94 ”				108		103
Height (standing)		164 centim.	182	161	159	152	166	171
” (sitting)		126 ”	131	124	125	124		126
Greatest extension of arms		162 ”	180	174	167	165	165	182
” ” of span		20 ”	16½	16	20	19		19
Total length of foot		25 ”	26	25	24½	23½	25½	27
Length of ditto, ante-malleolar		20 ”	21½	19	20	19½		22
Forehead		high; slightly receding	high; slightly retreating	medium; straight	medium; straight	high; straight	high; breadth of forehead 107	high; slightly receding
Frontal bone (bord sourcillier)		very marked	well developed	much developed	scarcely any	scarcely any	pronounced	very pronounced
Intra-ocular distance		scarcely any	deep	very deep	not deep	not deep	deep; distance 3·4	very small
Eyebrows		bushy, crossing, forming but one line	very bushy	arched, bushy, crossed	arched, bushy, crossed	arched, bushy, crossed	standing far apart, thin	arched
Eyes		straight	straight	straight	straight	straight	straight	straight
Cheeks		little salient	little salient	salient	little salient	little salient	very salient	salient
Zygomatic arch		very salient	salient	salient	much developed	much developed	salient	not salient
Chin		oval	oval	oval	oval	oval	oval	square
Ears		medium, little salient (round, small)				medium flat	long; height of ear 6·3	medium
Mouth				medium	small	thick	length of mouth 5·3	medium
Neck		strong	proportioned	proportioned	well proportioned	strong	proportioned	strong
Torso		strong	square	proportioned	well made	slim (svelte)	proportioned	vigorous
Extremities		very small	fine	fine	medium	medium	small	medium[123]

JAMSHÊD.—A KatÁr KÁfir; nephew of General Feramorz.

MEASUREMENTS OF HEAD (BY DR. JOHN BEDDOE).

		ENGLISH MILLIMETRES.	INCHES.
1.	Greatest length of head from glabella	6·8	172·7
2.	Length from tuber occip. to greatest convexity of frontal arch	6·7	170·2
3.	Length from tuber occip. to glabella	6·8	172·7
4.	Greatest length of head from smooth depression above glabella (ophryon)	6·75	171·4
5.	Greatest length of head from depression at root of nose	6·65	168·9
6.	Length from chin to vertex	9·1	231·1
7.	Least breadth between frontal crests	3·7	94
8.	Greatest breadth between zygomata	5·1	129·5
9.	Breadth from tragus to tragus	5·	127
10.	Greatest breadth of head, yielding cranial index 86·7	5·9	149·8
11.	Breadth between greatest convexities of mastoid processes	5·3	134·6
12.	Greatest circumference of head	20·6	523·2
13.	Circumference at glabello-inial line	20·4	518·1
14.	Circumference at inion and frontal convexity	20·5	520·6
15.	Arc from nasal notch to inion (tuber occip.)	12·8	325·1
16.	Arc from one meatus to the other across top of head	14·4	365·7
17.	Arc from one meatus to the other over glabella	11·5	292·1
18.	Length of face (nasal notch to chin), giving facial index, 80·4	4·1	104·1
	Height from meatus to vertex	5·3	133·5
	Bigoniac breadth	4·1	103·5

The head, though strongly brachy-cephalic, is distinctly of Aryan type; high and round, but not at all acro-cephalic; the inion is placed very high.

JAMSHÈD—(continued).

The following Measurements are according to the System of Schwarz, of the Novara Expedition.

		CENTIMETRES.
28.	From the growth of hair to the incisura semilunaris sterni	25·
29.	From the inion to the Halswirbel (vertebra prominens)	14·45
30.	Direct diameter, from one meatus aud. ext. to the other	11·85
31.	Outer angle of the eye to the other	8·75
32.	Inner angle of the eye to the other	2·75
33.	Distance of the fixed points of the ear	4·05
34.	Breadth of the nose	3·2
35.	Breadth of the mouth	5·
36.	Distance of the two angles of the lower jaw	10·35
37.	From incis. semil. sterni to the seventh vertebra	12·95
38.	From the axillary line over the mammÆ to the other	26·4
39.	From sternum to columna vertebralis, straight across	19·3
40.	From one spina anterior superior ilii to the other	22·35
41.	From one troch. maj. to other	26·05
42.	Circumference of the neck	33·5
43.	From one tuberculum majus to the other	37·
44.	From middle line of axillary line over the chest, above mammÆ, to the other middle line	41·5
45.	Circumference of chest on the same level	88·25
46.	From nipple to nipple	19·25
47.	Between anterior spines of ilia	26·85
48.	From trochanter major to the spina anterior ilii of the same side	13·5
49.	From the most prominent part of the sternal articulation of the clavicular to above	43·4
50.	From same point to the navel	39·2
51.	From navel to upper edge of the symphysis ossium pubis	14·75
52.	From the 5th lumbar vertebra along the edge of the pelvis to the edge of the symphysis	43·
53.	From the 7th vertebra to the end of the os coccygis	60·35
54.	From one acromion to the other across the back	43·7
55.	From the acromion to the condyl. ext. humeri	32·25
56.	From ext. condyl. humeri to processus styloideus radii	25·
57.	From processus styloideus radii to metacarpal joint	10·2
58.	From the same joint to the top of the middle finger	9·8
59.	Circumference of the hand	21·4
60.	Greatest circumference of upper arm over the biceps	26·8
61.	Greatest circumference of forearm	24·5
62.	Smallest circumference of forearm	15·2
63.	From trochanter major to condyl. ext. femoris	34·35
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.	From condyl. ext. femoris to mal. ext.	38·6
69.	Circumference of knee joint	32·4
70.	Circumference of calf	36·4
71.	Smallest circumference of leg	21·3
72.	Length of the foot	23·3
73.	Circumference of instep	23·5
74.	Circumference of metatarsal joint	23·5
75.	From external malleolus to ground	8·1
76.	From condyl. intern. to malleolus int.	36·9
77.	Greatest circumference of thigh	48·5
78.	Smallest circumference of thigh	35·5
79.	Round the waist	68·4
80.	Height of man (English, 5´ 3¾)	161·9
81.	Colour of hair, very dark reddish-brown.
82.	Colour of eyes, hazel-grey.
83.	Colour of face, yellowish-brown.
84.	Colour of skin of body, lighter than above.
85.	Weight,
86.	Strength,
87.	Pulsation, 80 (a little excited).

APPENDIX VI.
A ROUGH ACCOUNT, COLLECTED IN 1886, OF ITINERARIES IN THE “NEUTRAL ZONE” BETWEEN CENTRAL ASIA AND INDIA. By Raja Khushwaqtia and Dr. G. W. Leitner.

Route I.

From Gilgit to Kabul, viÂ Dareyl, Tangir, KandiÁ, UjÙ, TorwÁl, Swat, Dir, MaidÁn, Jandul, Bajaur, Muravarri, PashÀt, KunÈr, Jelalabad, Kabul.

Gilgit to Sherkila, 9 katsha (rough) kÔs[124] (1½ miles), ruled by Isa Bahadur’s son, Raja Akbar Khan, under Kashmir, a faithful ally, contains 70 zemindars’ (peasants’) houses on the Yasin river.

Sherkila to PatÀri (is uninhabited), over a ridge Pir (17 katsha kÔs) called BatrÈt, which is a plateau on which the Dareylis graze their flocks in the spring.

PatÀri to Yatshot (12 katsha kÔs), road stony and jungly. Yatshot is a village of Dareyl of one hundred houses, occupied by zemindars who have cattle, sheep, goats, and buffaloes (which are not found in Badakhshan). The ground produces much white maize (from which bread is made), wheat, barley, grapes growing to a gigantic size, nuts, etc. There is excellent water, but it is very cold. The people are Sunnis, and speak ShinÁ (the dialect of ChilÁs). [The Shins appear to have been a Hindu tribe expelled from Kashmir territory and converted to a sort of Muhammadanism, both Shiah and Sunni. They are the highest caste in Dardistan; but, instead of the Brahminical veneration for the cow, they abhor everything connected with it—its flesh and milk—and only touch its calf at the end of a prong.] Yatshot has two mosques, and Mullas who understand Arabic well. The Dareylis are very religious, and attentive to their ceremonial practices. The streamlet of Dareyl runs past it.

Yatshot to ManikÁl, 3 katsha kÔs, a plain easy march through a prairie. ManikÁl has two forts, one of which has about 500 houses, and is called DÒrkans; and the other, ManikÁl proper, which has 300 houses and an old Mosque. ManikÁl is surrounded by forests. When the Kashmir troops reached ManikÁl, the Dareylis, after fighting, burned down their old fort rather than surrender. There are many Mullas and disciples there, some coming from Peshawar, Swat, etc.

ManikÁl to SamangÁl, 3 katsha kÔs, over an inhabited plain. The fort contains 800 houses. A great elder (Djashtero) called Kalashmir resides there, whom all the Dareylis respect and follow, although there are many other Djashteros, like Muqaddams (elders, mayors), in Kashmir villages. He is wise and rich, possessing, perhaps, in addition to cattle, etc., 5 or 6 thousand tolas of gold; and he has one wife and two or three children. Persian is read there in addition to Arabic. There is also another fort containing 500 houses, also called SamangÁl, a few hundred yards from the first. In fact, Dareyl, although a small country, is thickly populated.

SamangÁl to PÙgutsh, a fort, with 500 houses, 2 katsha kÔs—thence 1 katsha kÔs to GayÁl, a fort with 600 houses—all an easy road.

GayÁl to KÀmi, Fort Tangir, over a high mountain called KÙbbekunn, very windy, and wooded. Water must be taken with one when starting from GayÁl, as none is found before reaching RÎm, a small village of 20 houses, on the Tangir side. The road for 8 kÔs is difficult, being an ascent of 4 kÔs on each side. From RÎm to Tangir the road is good, water abundant, and habitations numerous. KÀmi fort has 1,000 houses of Gujars (a shepherd and cowherd tribe that is found following its peaceful occupation, either as settlers or nomads, in the most dangerous districts), and zemindars, who are tributaries to Yasin, paying taxes in gold and kind. There is a direct road from Tangir to Yasin, viÂ SatÌl—6 kÔs, plain, with many Gujars, paying their grazing tax in gold; thence over a small peak, MayirÉy, to the plateau of BatrÊt, 8 katsha kÔs. (See second stage of this route.)

From BatrÊt to RÀushan, over a small mountain. RÀushan is a small fort of Yasin, whence there are roads to Yasin, ChitrÁl, Gilgit, etc. Gold is washed from the Indus, which is 3 katsha kÔs from KÀmi. The Tangiris are braver than the Dareylis and equally religious, having many Mullas; but the country, although larger, is not so well populated as Dareyl, the people of which are also rather shepherds than hunters. The GabÁr are the ruling people in Tangir, about 1,000 families, of which 500 are in KÀmi. They are the old proprietors of the country, and are all Shins who now have given up their old aversion to the cow, its flesh and milk.

KÀmi, over the mountain TrÀk, called by the Pathans Chaudunno, which has no snow on the Tangir side, but a snow-covered plateau 1½ kÔs long on the KandiÁ side. Then comes a green plain. To the foot of the mountain TrÀk on the Tangir side 11 kÔs pakka (11 good kÔs, or nearly 22 miles), over a tree-covered plain. Then over the TrÀk pass and plateau, the road goes along a plain which extends for 17 kÔs to GabriÁl. There are a great many Gujars along the road. [The road to Yasin is through the Gujar-frequented district of KuranjÁ, belonging to Tangir. MultÁn is the Muqaddam of the Gujars, a brave man.]

GabriÁl has only 40 houses, but the country of GabriÁl generally is studded with habitations. The famous Mullah HabÎbulla, a relative of Raja Khushwaqtia, is a most influential man among Kohistanis. His tribe is Mullakheyl, and all the Gujars of KandiÁ are obedient to him. The Mullakheyl are ShÎns, but Yashkuns also live there. Yashkuns are the peasantry of Dardistan, including Hunza, and supposed to be aborigines, though some derive the Yashkuns of Hunza from the white Yuechi, or Huns, and others give them a Western origin. They have always been Sunnis. (The Dareylis were formerly Shiahs.) (See detailed account of GabriÁl by one of its Maulvis, Mir Abdullah, and of KandiÁ or KiliÁ, translated by Dr. G. W. Leitner.) The people of KandiÁ are wealthy in flocks, ghi (= clarified butter, exported to Peshawur, 18 to 25 pakka seers for the rupee). It is subject to Yasin. They possess double or Indian rupees and mahmudshahis, some having 10 or 20 thousand rupees. The poorest have 10 to 12 cows, 100 sheep, etc. The greatest among the Gujars intermarry with Yasin chiefs. The Kohistanis are independent, but the Gujars pay a tribute to Yasin. The Samu or Samasi village is 2 kÔs from GabriÁl. From GabriÁl, ½ kÔs distant, is a mountain called by the same name, with an ascent of five to six pakka kÔs, with excellent water; road only open in summer. A descent of 5 kÔs brings one to Ushu, a big village of 600 houses inhabited by Bashkaris. (See special account by Dr. Leitner of Bashkar and its language.) The Swat river touches it. The Bashkaris pay a small tribute to Yasin, but are practically independent. They are generally on good terms with the Torwaliks, who were formerly their rulers. The languages of Torwal and Bashkar are different.

From UshÙ to TorwÁl, 13 kÔs, very bad, stony road, after KalÁm (2 miles from UshÙ). TorwÁl has 200 houses. They are not so rich as the people of KandiÁ and JalkÔt.

From TorwÁl to BranihÁl, the frontier of TorwÁl, 12 to 13 kÔs, a bad stony road, 600 houses and a BazÁr in which there are 5 or 6 Hindu merchants. [The Hindu traders are not molested in YaghistÁn (“the wild land” as DardistÁn, the country between Kabul and Kashmir is often called), because no one is afraid of them; whereas if a Sahib (English man) came, people would be afraid.] There are many wealthy people in BranihÁl, which may be considered to be the capital of TorwÁl.

BranihÁl to Swat, a plain; at only 1½ kÔs is ShagrÁm, composed of 3 villages, under the children of the Sayad (descendant of the prophet Muhammad), Pir BÂba. The three villages are inhabited by Sayads and contain 500 houses. Then to TirÁh (1 mile, a plain), where the MÎna or Akhunkheyls live (300 houses).

TirÁh to LandÉy, 1 kÔs pakka, a PatÁn village, in which rice grows, beginning from BranihÁl; LandÉy to LalkÚn (a small village away from the big road to Hoti Murdan) 5 kÔs, a plain. Thence Fazil banda, 12 kÔs, a plain; thence to a mountain, BarkÀnn, 12 kÔs, a plain, leaving the Swat for the Dir territory. Jarughey (hamlet of Gujars) is the halting-place. From Jarughey into the Dara of UshurÉy, in Yaghistan proper; it is the home of the Khan of Dir, and is inhabited by the Panda Kheyl tribe. Halt at JÀbar, a village 14 kÔs from Jarughey, a fairly inhabited road. From JÀbar to MaidÁn (16 kÔs) by the mountain KÁir Dara, and passing the fort BibiÓl (100 houses) a fort of the Khan of Dir. The mountain is high. MaidÁn fort and Bazar, and Bandey fort (500 houses), KumbÀr 1 kÔs distant, 1,000 houses, of Mians, and Bazar with many Hindus. Thence to Bandey MayÁr, a great BazÁr, and a renowned ZiÁret (shrine), and Langar (almshouse) of SaukanÓ MiÂn, a village of Peshawar, are 2,000 or 3,000 houses, belonging to Jandul. It is 14 kÔs distant from MaidÁn, over an inhabited plain. Umr Khan, the ruler, has 240 excellent horsemen, 3,000 infantry, fights with Dir, who has 500 inferior horses and numerous footmen, but not so brave as JandÚl. TerkanÌ is the name of the JandÚl ruler and tribe up to Jellalabad, and IrubsÌ that of DÎr, Swat, Buneyr, SamÈ, Pakli, etc. At 1½ kÔs of Mayar is MiÁkil, a big town, of 5,000 houses and a Bazar. MiÁkil to (Bajaur) BadÂm, are Kakazis, of the MamÙnd tribe, for 16 kÔs a plain, 400 houses, YÁgis (wild); BadÀm to Mureweri, are 16 kÔs, over a small mountain (Mohmands) in Yaghistan, has 1,000 houses. (At Nawagai is a Khan, Ajdar Khan, with 20 horsemen and 3,000 footmen.) At KhÀr was another KhÁn, Dilawar Khan, who fled to Peshawar, his place having been conquered by Ajdar Khan; 100 houses. The place is surrounded by the Tuman-kheyl tribe. On the other side of the river, Kabul rule begins, and opposite is Chagar Sarai, leading to KatÁr, once a stronghold of Kafirs. Gambir is subject to Kabul, the rest of the Siah Posh being independent; and another road leads to Petsh, which is YÁgi, or independent.

From Muraweri to PashÙtt, 5 or 6 kÔs pakka. Below Muraweri, 2 kÔs, is Serkanni, where there are 200 Kabul troops. From PashÙtt cross stream on jhallas (inflated skins) to Jelalabad, 20 or 22 kÔs; whence the road to Kabul is too well known to need even a passing reference.

Uninteresting as rough accounts of itineraries may be to the general reader, they are not without importance to the specialist. My material on the subject of routes to, and through, the Hindu-kush territories is considerable, though necessarily defective. It was mainly collected in 1866-72, when a portion of it was used by that leader of men, General Sir Charles MacGregor. I published a few “routes” at various intervals in the hope of stimulating inquiry, and of eliciting corrections or further information; but Indian official Departments, instead of co-operating, are uncommunicative of the partial, and therefore often misleading, knowledge which they possess, and, above all, jealous of non-official specialists. The First part of my work on Hunza has recently been printed by the Indian Foreign Office; where and when the Second will appear, is doubtful. I think the public have a right to know how matters stand in what was once called “the neutral zone,” the region between the Russian and the British spheres of influence in Asia. At any rate, the learned Societies and International Oriental and other Congresses, that, on the strength of the material already published, have done me the honour at various times to apply with but very partial success, to Government on behalf of the elaboration of my material, shall not be deprived of it, though I can only submit it to them in its rough primitive state. The reader of The Asiatic Quarterly Review will, I hope, not be deterred by the dulness of “routes” from glancing at material which, in future articles, will include accounts, however rough, of the languages, the history and Governments, the customs, legends, and songs of, perhaps, the most interesting countries and races in Asia. The information, often collected under circumstances of danger, is based on personal knowledge, and on the accounts of natives of position in the countries to be dealt with.

G. W. L.

[Reprinted from The Asiatic Quarterly Review, April, 1891.]

ROUGH ACCOUNTS OF ITINERARIES THROUGH THE HINDUKUSH AND TO CENTRAL ASIA.

By Dr. G. W. Leitner.

Route II.

In connection with my note in “Routes in Dardistan,” I now propose to publish a series of accounts which have been supplied to me by native Indian or Central Asian travellers of position and trustworthiness, and which cannot fail, whatever their scientific or literary deficiencies, to be of topographical and ethnographical, if not of political, value. I commence with the account of a loyal native Chief, who has had opportunities of comparing Russian with British administration. The Chief first passes quickly from Jelalabad to Gandamak, thence to TazÎn, ButkhÁk, BalahisÁr (where he left his sword with D... S...); he then proceeds from Kabul to ChalikÁr, (a distance of 17 kÔs over a plain); then stops at the SalÁn village, at the foot of the Hindukush, 11 kÔs, and then goes on to say: “SalÁn: one road goes to the Hindukush and one to BajgÁ (a halt) 14 kÔs,[125] over a mountain into Afghan Turkistan. AnderÁb, district of KundÛz, 17 kÔs, plain; AnderÁb to BazderÁ; then BaghbÁn; then RobÂt (where there is a camp of Kabul troopers against Uzbak robbers), 14 k. in Haibak district to Haibak town; stayed at a small place of TashkurghÁn, which has 6,000 houses, and is held by a RisÁla (troop) of the Amir; stayed at an intermediate cantonment established by Kabul; then to Mazari Sharif, 13 kÔs (all belonging to Balkh). Daulatabad (300 houses); thence to the river Amu over a Reg (sandy and dusty place) in a buggy of two horses, paid three double rupees,[126] took water with us (20 kÔs). There are 100 men over the ferry for protection against raiding Turkomans. Sherdil Khan LoinÁb gave me a passport to visit the ZiÁrat (shrine) of Khaja Bahauddin Naqshbandi, at BokhÁra. Went on ferry with 100 cattle and 50 men all day long, to the village of TalashkhÁn (500 h.) in BokhÁra territory, where we rested in the evening. Next day by road to Sherabad, 7 kÔs, plain (2,500 h.); then to ChinarÌ (600 houses), passing the Khirga Nishin Khirghiz and Uzbak, “living in huts” (also Zemindars); Cheshma-i-Hafiz, 40 h., and a Serai for travellers. Then again on to the plain; made a halt among the Khirga-nishin. Next day went on to the large city of GhuzÁr (250,000 inhabitants, with villages, etc.). (Thence to Karshi to BokhÁra); thence to Karabagh (700 houses); to town of Chiraghtshi in Shehrsabz (Ch. has 3,000 h.), whence it is four miles distant. Shehrsabz is a beautiful place of 6,000 houses. (The BokhÁra army has a band in Russian style, and is drilled in a Russian way; it is better fed and clad than are the Afghans, but it is not so brave.) Thence to KitÁb, 3,000 houses, and BokhÁra troops; did not stay there, but went to Takhta Karatsha, 10 kÔs: thence to KurghantippÉ BazÁr; thence to Samarcand, a paradise (500,000 inhabitants, two rivers); there is a HÁkim and General, the place belongs to the White Czar = the Ak Padishah. There were 12 regiments of infantry, and 8 of cavalry there. Then to JÁm, 4 kÔs (a large Russian force), 12 regiments of infantry, 4 of cavalry. I stayed with A.R. at Samarcand. There is a Russian cantonment between Jezakh and Samarcand, Kor, KhoshgurÙ. The guns everywhere are directed towards Yasin, or India. I was nowhere molested in visiting Russian cantonments. Jezakh, Tamburabad, little Bokhara; Zamin, Uratippa, a great town, and among 40,000 inhabitants there are 6 battalions and 8 regiments of infantry; NÁu in Khojend district. Then Khojend, 800,000 inhabitants, great army; MahrÀm, BesharÌh in Khokand, then to the city of Khokand; Karawultippa, 8 kÔs, plain, MurghilÁn, a big city, 350,000 inhabitants with villages; MintippÉ, 3,000 houses (or inhabitants?), ArabÁn; Ush, a large army (KashghÁr is eleven days’ march). IndujÁn, big Russian army; 150,000 (inhabitants). Then to the Kokand river, Derya SÎr, crossing to NamangÁn, big city and army, thence returned to IndujÁn, then to AsÁka, 8 kÔs plain, 9,000 inhabitants and army (1 cavalry, 4 infantry), then to ShahrikhÁn, 6 kÔs, big city, 8,000 inhabitants or houses; then to Kawa, 5 kÔs. UtshkurghÁn, 10 kÔs, big city in Khokand: thence into a valley to a Langar, 17 kÔs, plain, at night, where there are Khirghiz subjects to Khokand; over a mountain into Alai, 13 kÔs, plain of Pamir, inhabited by Khirghiz, very cold; then to Chaghalmak, 15 kÔs, plain, a small village, 100 houses of Khirghiz. District of Karateghin, which is subject to Bokhara (Alai being under the Russians); Chaghalmak to ZankÙ, 16 kÔs, plain (horses are to be found everywhere for hire, according to distance by Farsang). At Samarcand one mule’s wheat load = two double rupees; a big sheep costs one rupee, and one and a half long-tailed sheep at Khokand, also one rupee. The fat of sheep is used instead of Ghi. Gold and notes abound more than silver. (Abdurrahman received 700 tungas = 350 rupees per day, for self and eighty followers.) Silk Atlas one and a half yards is sold for one rupee. The Russian ladies are well dressed, and great respect is shown to them. The officers are very polite. There are free dispensaries, and schools in which Russian and the KorÁn are taught. (Haldi and black pepper from India is dear); there is no tyranny, and they are exactly like the English; the Russians live in bungalows. The KÁzis and the man who beats the drum at night for Ramazan are paid by the Russians; sanitation is well attended to; all the troops are Europeans, except the Noghais, who are Tartars. I was much struck at Khojend by seeing the cavalry mounted according to the colour of the horses. (Gold is said to come from Kashgar and Khokand, but I have not seen the mine.) Camels abound and are eaten. ZankÙ to Kila-i Lab-i Ab (300 houses), 16 kÔs, plain, to a village ShÒkh darÀ (300 houses).

It is a fine country; the people talk Persian, and are Sunnis (belongs to BokhÁra).

Kila-i Lab-i Ab, governed by a BokhÁra KardÁr, called HÁkim Muhammad Nazir Beg, at a Fort Gharm to ShughdarÉy, 12 kÔs, plain, on horseback all along to Samarcand (300 h.), ShughdarÉy to Fort Gharm, 3 k. (1,500 houses or inhabitants), Gharm to ChildarÁ, a village in DerwÁz, plain, 17 k. packa (buggies do not go there), 150 h.; thence to Khawaling, Bazar, 1,000 h. (in the District of KolÁb), 17 kÔs, plain; carriages can go; thence to the city of KolÁb 14 kÔs, plain (KolÁb is under BokhÁra) (was formerly governed by KartshÎn Khan, a raider), whose brother Serakhan is at KÁbul. KolÁb, 6,000 houses, is a fine city, and there are six other cities belonging to it (Khawaling, KungÁr, etc.); thence to Sar-i-Chashma, 10 kÔs, plain; carriages can go (200 houses); thence to BarÀk, 40 h. on the Amu 4 kÔs, a warm place like KolÁb generally; cross into SamptÌ (60 h.), in the district of RostÁk, belonging to BadakhshÁn (paid 4 annas for conveyance of five horses costing me 3 tolas in KolÁb = 30 rupees); to ChayÁp city, 2,000 houses (Jews are wealthy and not oppressed, and at KolÁb there are Jews and Hindus, the latter with no families). Jews wear front curls, and have furs; women are handsome, but are dressed like Mussulman women; men, however, wear caps and narrow trousers, not turbans, as a rule, or wide trousers. The Jews in Turkestan are very clean. “They have a learning like the Shastras of the Pandits.” They lend money to the Khan of BokhÁra. (The utensils are of china.)

Mare’s milk is much consumed cooked with meat, and has a highly intoxicant effect. ChayÀp to RostÁk, 8 kÔs, plain, 2 Afghan regiments of cavalry, 4 regiments of infantry (there are also some troops at ChayÀp) 4,000 houses. BazÁr well-frequented; springs; is a hot place. AtunjulÁb, 12 kÔs, plain, carriages can go (60 houses); FaizabÁd 16 kÔs, great city and large Afghan force (3,500 houses?). I stayed at BÁrak, 10 kÔs; a nice place for illustrious strangers (100 houses); plenty of Zemindars, very easy, plain, full of fruit (apples, apricots, etc.); ChaugarÁn 9 kos, plain (200 houses); TirgarÁn (60 houses, of MulÁis, the strange sect regarding which elsewhere) 11 kÔs, plain, with the exception of a small bad bit, over which horses, how ever, can go, called RafÀq = ParrÌ in Punjabi. From TirgarÁn to Zerkhan in ZebÁk, 14 kÔs, plain, but carriages cannot go. ZebÁk is a fine cool place. Its great Mulai, Sayed Abdurrahim, has fled to Arkari in ChitrÁl. Zerkhan has 500 Khassadars of Kabul (even the infantry there have horses), and 150 houses. Zerkhan to ShikashÌm, small fort, 11 kÔs, plain, 300 houses in villages all round; it is now well garrisoned with Kabulis (2 k. from ShikashÌm are the ruby mines worked in winter near GharÀn on the road to ShignÁn). (In the time of Mir Shah rubies as large as candles were said to be got, lighting up the place.) “Lajvard” (Lapis lazuli) is got from Yumgan, a village in mountain above Jirm in Badakhshan. “Lajvard” is sold at a rupee of a Rupee size. (Gold streaks are often found in it.) ShikashÌm to Kazi-deh, 10 kÔs, plain (carriages could go) in Wakhan, which begins at Putr about half kÔs from ShikashÌm (another road from ShikashÌm to ShignÁn in two days viÂ Ghasann 10 kÔs, plain, very cold); thence 12 kÔs to a fort in Shignan. Kazi-deh has 40 houses. Kazi-deh to Pigitsh 12 kÔs, very plain, 15 houses of very wealthy people, all Mulais; Shoghor under ChitrÁl, 500 houses. Fort over the Khatinza, Nuqsan and Dura passes from ZeibÁk all under ChitrÁl; the first-named pass is open all the year round, but violent storms blow at the top.

Pigitsh to Fort Panjah, a plain 12 kÔs; Ali Murdan Khan, its former ruler, is a refugee with ChitrÁl; 200 Afghan cavalry; there are 5 or 6 houses in the fort, and a number of villages round it (ZrÒng, a warm mineral spring, 40 houses; Kishm, 40 houses, GatskhÒn, 30 houses. Above Pigitsh are other villages. KhindÀt, 50 houses; supplies are most plentiful).

From Panjah to ZÀng (50 houses) 11 kÔs, plain (artillery could go); ZÀng to Serhadd 12 katcha kÔs, 200 houses, plain, cold, much wheat, cattle, etc.; here the Pamir begins. Thence to UshÀk, 14 k. plain, except a small elevation, very cold (here there is a road to Yarkand, and another to Hunza; the Wakhanis graze their cattle and flocks here in winter as there is abundant grass); UshÀk to LangÀr, 12 kÔs, plain; the roads divide, of which the left one goes to Sarikol, and the right one to Hunza. Cattle are kept there in winter by the Serhadd people; LangÀr to BaikarÁ 8 kÔs plain.

BarkarÁ to BabagundÌ, 12 kÔs over the IrshÁd Pir (somewhat steep and snow-covered on the Wakhan side, but otherwise easy). Here there is a road on the other side to BabagundÌ (small town); place for Ghazan Khan’s cattle (Dannkut). BabagundÌ is a famous shrine of Pir IrshÁd, where even the Mulai Ghazankhan gives cooking pots for travellers, and makes offerings; there are 5 or 6 houses of Zemindars, who look after the shrine. (Half a kÔs beyond BabagundÌ the various roads to the Karumbar, Badakhshan, and one to Hunza join.)

Babagundi to RÍshatt; small fort, 11 kÔs; inhabited; 5 villagers’ houses employed in agriculture. RÍshatt; for 4 kÔs there is a plain road; then a difficult road, RÁship JerÁb, with precipices (6 kÔs from RÍshatt), which can be destroyed, so as to make the approach from that side very hazardous; the road continues to YubkatÍ, with scarcely much improvement, for 1½ kÔs. There is a small town there, as generally on difficult defiles, or places than can be defended. YubkatÍ to Gircha, 1 kÔs katcha (10 houses); Gircha to Murkhon, 10 houses of Zemindars, 1 kÔs; 2 katcha-kÔs comes the Khaibar village of 4 houses, a defile defended by a small town, with a door shutting the road (Der-band); Khaibar, 4 kÔs to PÀss; road over snow or glacier for 1½ kÔs; below the glacier is the village of PÀss, 25 houses.

PÀss to Hussain, 20 houses; also a shrine 1½ kÔs; fair road; also a deep natural tank (hauz) (where there is a place to keep cattle in winter) a few hundred yards from village. Beyond there is again one of the streaks of never-melting icefields, and dividing it from Ghulkin, a village of 60 houses (the gardens flourishing in the close vicinity of these icefields). Immediately near Ghulkin is GulmÙtti, 100 houses; thence for 10 kÔs to Alti, a bad road over an elevation, RefÁq, closed by one of the doors to which I have referred. The door is 1 kÔs distant from GulmÙtti. Alti (150 houses), the residence of Salim Khan, father of Ghazanfar, who built Balti, where his son, the present ruler of Hunza, Ghazankhan, lives. Balti is ½ kÔs from Alti, and above it. Balti has 1,000 houses, Zemindars MulÁis; there are 50 Mosques, but no one reads prayers in them; people build them for the sake of glorification, not worship. They are used for dancing, drinking, etc. (the Raja used to dance himself on the Nauroz, and give presents to the Zemindars). Hunza may turn out 2,000 fighting men. Near it Fort Haiderabad (½ kÔs), with 300 houses; close to it is another fort, Chumarsingh, with 100 houses; near it DÒrkhann Fort, with 200 houses (the inhabitants are more numerous than the wasted ground can support. People live largely on apricots, etc.; the land is generally sterile). ½ kÔs from DÒrkhann is Gannish Fort, 600 houses, above the river which divides Hunza from Nagyr, where the Sumeir Fort confronts Gannish. There is also a small fort near Gannish, called KarÁl, with 50 houses. (Near DÒrkhann is also a similar small fort, the name of which I forget.) Coming back to DÒrkhann, and going from it straight in the Gilgit direction, is Aliabad Fort, with 600 houses, and close to it Hasanabad Fort, with 100 houses. There is also a “Derrband” between Hasanabad and Murtezabad, about a mile distant over a stream. Murtezabad has 2 forts, one with 100, and the other with 50 houses.

From Murtezabad to HirÌ for two kÔs; difficult ascent and descent. HirÌ, a large village, with 800 houses of Zemindars in the fort (Shins live there); 2 kÔs of bad road, excepting about 1 mile; to MayÓn, 50 houses. Four katcha kÔs bring one without much difficulty, except over one ascent, over the BudalÈss stream, violent in summer, where there is also a fort (a warm spring in a fort called Barr, 25 houses, occupied by 20 Sepoys of the Maharaja) to ChÁlta, in Gilgit territory, near BudalÈss. There is a fort there, 150 houses, and 100 Sepoys. Over the Nulla, about one kÔs above, is ChaprÔt, 50 Sepoys and 60 houses; is a strong position (Natu Shah came to grief, with 1,000 men, between BudalÈss and MayÔn). From ChÁlta, crossing the river and a small mountain, is a plateau to Nilt Fort, in Nagyr territory, 4 kÔs from ChÁlta, and confronting MayÔn. From ChÁlta to Nomal, in Gilgit territory, with two RifÁqs each; near to these respective places for 11 kÔs (kacha), 100 houses. There are 20 Sepoys in the Koti to guard the grain. The Zemindars now live outside the fort, which is merely used for the storage of grain. From Nomal to Gilgit 12 kÔs, plain, which now contains 200 houses.

Route III.

From ZeibÁk to ChitrÁl, over the Khatinza, a very high Pass, to Shoghor, or the other passes already mentioned. ViÂ the Khatinza, which is always open, the road from ZeibÁk to Deh-i-gul, 1 kÔs, 25 houses.

There the roads separate, one going over the NuqsÁn, which is closed in winter, and the other one over the Khatinza, both joining at Kurubakh, a place ensconced by stones, and about 5 kÔs either way from Deh-i-gul; from Kurubakh to OwÎr, 20 houses, 3 kÔs, easy road; from OwÎr to Arkari, 80 houses, 5 kÔs, easy road (ShÁli, 10 houses, is one kÔs from Arkari); Momi, 5 kÔs farther on, 50 houses. From Arkari to Shoghor is 10 kÔs katcha. From Shoghor, 3 miles below, is Rondur, 5 or 6 houses; 4 kÔs is another Shali, 20 houses, and thence over a plain by a village (the name of which I forget) 5 katcha kÔs.

Below Shoghor the streams of Arkari and Lodko join, at Andakhti, two katcha kÔs from Shoghor. The Rajah of ChitrÀl’s son lives there (Bahram); another son, Murid, lived in Lodko district. There is little snowfall on the high Khatinza, but there is plenty on the easy NuqsÁn. A third road, over a plain, also leads to ChitrÁl from ZeibÁk, namely, to UskÚtul (3 kÔs from ZeibÁk); thence to Singlich, 2½ kÔs, maidÁn; thence to the great tank, lake, or Hauz, five miles long and 1½ miles broad, full of big fish. Thence over the Durra, infested by Kafirs, only a katcha kÔs, easy ascent, when the snow melts (otherwise impassable), and an easy descent of one kÔs to Shai SidÈn, at foot of pass (below which is, 2 kÔs, GobÔr, where there is some cultivation in summer). (Birzin is a village of 40 houses, about 8 kÔs distant from GobÔr.) ParabÊg, 50 houses, 2 kÔs; ParabÊg to Kui, 70 houses, 1 katcha kÔs; below Kui, ½ kÔs, is JÍtur; below is a ziarat of Pir Shah Nasir Khosro at BirgunnÌ, one kÔs, a warm spring, 50 houses; BirgunnÌ to DrÔshp, 2 katcha kÔs, where Raja ImÁn-ul-Mulk’s son, Murid, resides. DrÔshp, 40 houses; one kÔs further is Mogh, 20 houses; thence to AndÁkhti, 4 or 5 kÔs. Over the Hauz is the MandÀl mountain towards the Siah Posh country. Ahmad DiwanÈ, 50 houses, is the first village of Kafirs, subject to ChitrÁl. Over GabÔr is the Shuitsh Mountain, behind which is the Aptzai Fort of the Siah Posh Kafirs, 200 houses; these are the two places from which Kafirs descend to plunder caravans coming from Peshawar, and of whose approach they may have been warned from ChitrÁl, keeping clothes and weapons for themselves, and giving the horses, etc., to ChitrÁl. The Kafirs of Kamoz (2,000 houses) are subject to ChitrÁl; also Ludde (1,000 houses), Aptsai (200 houses), Shudgol Fort (150 houses).

IstagÀz is subject (100 houses) to ChitrÁl; Mer (40 houses) subject to ChitrÁl; MundjÈsh, 500 houses; MadugÀll (500 houses and two forts), on a difficult road, is between Kamoz (1 kÔs above it) and KamtÁn (Ludde, Aptsai, Shudgol, Ahmad DiwanÉ), 4 kÔs. These Madugallis are independent, and plunder caravans from Dir or Zemindars. Sometimes they are bribed by the ChitrÁl Raja to keep quiet.

Dull as the above account may read, it is full of topographical, if not political, interest to whoever can read “between the lines”; and the telegrams and articles in The Times of the 23rd and 25th Sept., 1891, throw light on an unpleasant and hitherto concealed situation. Since 1866 I have, in vain, drawn the attention of the Indian Government to the Gilgit frontier. In 1886, or twenty years after my exploration, Colonel Lockhart’s mission, no doubt, did service, as regards ChitrÁl; but Hunza and Nagyr have been mismanaged, owing to the incompetent manner in which my information has been used. I have recently, after three years’ labour, much expense, and some danger, completed the first quarto volume of my work on Hunza, Nagyr, and a part of Yasin, the language of which has been a great puzzle, that has now been unravelled, giving a new departure to philology; and the Foreign Department of the Indian Government has presented me with 100 copies of my work, a compliment that is often paid to the honorary contributor of a paper to the Asiatic Quarterly Review.

APPENDIX VII.

(a) A SECRET RELIGION IN THE HINDUKUSH [THE PAMIR REGION] AND IN THE LEBANON.

I.—The MulÁis of the Hindukush.

A number of conjectures as to the origin of the word “MulÁi,” all of which are incorrect, have been made by eminent writers unacquainted with Arabic or the meaning of its theological history and terms. A few of these conjectures, however, go very near some fact or view connected with the “MulÁis.” The word may not mean “terrestrial gods,” but there are no other, for practical purposes, in the creed of the “MulÁis.” It is certainly not a corruption of “MulÁhid” or “heretic,” if not “atheist,” although this term has been specially applied to them by their enemies. It can have nothing whatever to do etymologically with “MuwÁhidin” or worshippers of “One” [God], though they, no doubt, call themselves so, i.e., “Unitarians.” There is this additional difficulty, moreover, introduced into the question, that no name can be conclusive as to the esoteric appellation of a sect that has been obliged to practise “Conformity” or “Pious fraud” or “concealment” of its religion, in order to escape persecution or wholesale massacre. The Shiahs,[127] whose belief, in the hereditary succession, through the descendants of A’li, of the spiritual “ImÁmat” or leadership or apostleship of the prophet Muhammad, rendered them overt or covert enemies of those Sunni rulers who held the temporal power or “the KhilÁfat” (misspelt as “the Caliphate”), were, and are, allowed to practise “TaqqÎa” (which I have rendered as “Conformity”) outwardly and the more exaggerated or exclusive a particular A’liite or Shiite sect, the more careful had it to be. The Sunni and Shiah may both publicly confess “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet”; but the Shiah adds under his breath, “A’li is the Deputy (Governor) of God and the heir of the prophet of God.” Now this word for “Deputy” is “vali,” “to be close to,” whether it be to God, a king, a priest, a master, or other position of eminence in Arabian belief, society, history, or intellectual creations.[128] “MaulÁ” or “MulÁ” comes from the same root and is generally applied to a spiritual master, but, among the Shiahs, specially to their “Lord” A’li. Therefore, “MulÁis” are the special followers of the “Lord A’li,” just as the Jesuits claim to be a fraternity of special followers of “the Lord Jesus.” When, then, the term “MaulÁnÁ” or our “Master or Lord” is specially used in the Druse Covenant of Initiation [see further on], there is not far to seek for the meaning of the appellation “MulÁi,” though it was left for me to find it out from the A’liite songs of the MulÁis of the Hindukush. Whatever the innermost coterie of the “initiated” may practise or believe, a connecting link of the sect with some existing creed is necessary for their safety or respectability. Thus, the Ismailians might call themselves “Sadiqis” or “the righteous,” in order to spread the belief of their being special adherents of the 6th ImÁm, (in the order of descent from A’li), the ImÁm Ja’far SÁdiq (the righteous), without entering into the vexed question as to whether his son “IsmÀÎl” was the real “seventh” ImÁm or his other son, MÛsa (through whom the bulk of Shiahs look for their Mahdi or Messiah, the 12th ImÁm). Nor would any such special fervour in revering a particular phase or man be necessarily deemed to be heretical, even among Sunnis. I have often heard a Sunni, especially if he was a Persian scholar and the strange magic of that language had subdued him, admit the impeachment of having “a particular love for the house of A’li,” and the numerous class of Sayads, who claim to be descendants of the Prophet, is respected, if not venerated, among Sunnis, who, in theory, oppose the “hereditary” claims of Shiahs.[129] The MÁulais, therefore, of the Hindukush, being, consciously or not, a sub-sect of Shiahs, can make friends with the main body of Shiahs, and yet pretend to the Sunnis as being, in many respects, with them. Normally, the MaulÁis would profess to be good Muhammadans of the Shiah persuasion, leaning, however, to the 7th ImÁm; if surrounded by, or in danger of, Sunnis, they would outwardly “conform” (which is all that the Sunnis require), and, at home, practise their own rites. The Khojas of Bombay, who had been converted from Hinduism, but whose very name is Ismailian, used to read the “Das-awtar” or “ten incarnations,” in which “A’li” is made out to be the “Tenth Incarnation,” thus rendering their step from Wishnu Hinduism to Shiah Muhammadanism an easy one. “All things to all men” is the dictum of the MulÁis, without, thereby, sacrificing their own convictions. The more a MulÁi knows, the more he acts on Disraeli’s sneer that all sensible men are of one religion, but do not tell what that religion is. The less a MulÁi knows, the more fanatically is he an A’liite, centreing however his faith on the living descendant of the 7th ImÁm. “Nothing is a crime that is not found out” may, or may not be, the theory among the Druses, or the practice all over the world; the fact remains that neither the Druses nor the MulÁis, whatever their belief, are worse than their neighbours. Even the odious signification that attaches to the term “Assassin” has been a calumny against those misguided Ismailians who sought to rid the world of tyrants who had ordered the general massacre of the sect or who sacrificed one man in order to save a whole people.

In 1866 I discovered the languages and races of “Dardistan” and gave that name to the countries between Kashmir and Kabul, including Hunza in them. In 1886 I was again on a special mission regarding the language of Hunza-Nagyr and a part of Yasin. I had already pointed out in 1867 the importance which our good friend, His Highness Agha Khan of Bombay, the Head of the Khojas in that city, enjoyed in those, then nearly inaccessible, regions, as also in Wakhan, Zebak, ShignÁn, Raushan, KolÁb and DerwÁz, where the MulÁis predominate and are governed by hereditary PÎrs or ancient sages of their own choice,[130] to whom they yield implicit obedience, as do also the covenanters with “Al-HÁkim” among the “initiated” of the Druses. Of these PÎrs, Agha Khan is Chief, and any command by him would be obeyed in some of the most dangerous parts of the Hindukush. Advantage was only taken in 1886 of this hint, when Colonel Lockhart’s mission was supplied with letters of recommendation by His Highness to the Mulais. My identification of their mysterious rites with those of the Druses connects the Lebanon with the Hindukush through the Ismailia sect, which under the name of the “Assassins” enjoyed such an unenviable notoriety during the Crusades and establishes a link among the nations of Richard Coeur de Lion,[131] of Palestine and of the Pamirs. The connection of Hunza with the Huns or Hunas and the relations between the “Old Man of the Mountain” and our own Richard may be the subject of a future article. At present, I will confine myself to translating from the Persian original a Pythian utterance out of the “KelÁm-i-PÎr” or “the Word of the ancient Sage,” which takes the place of the KorÁn among MaulÁis, and of which the following is the first extract ever given from that hidden book. It was partly dictated to me and partly written out on the occasion of His Highness, the present Agha Khan, paying me a visit, by the leader of some MulÁis, who had fled, first from Russian tyranny, and then from the still heavier Afghan oppression in the border-countries of Central Asia, my own Hunza man also being present on the occasion.[132] The extract was called the MulÁi “Mukti” or “Salvation” Cry of the MulÁis. It may be incidentally mentioned that Shah Abdurrahim in Zeibak was (and perhaps still is) the greatest PÎr in Central Asia. He controls Hunza, so far as that God-forsaken country can be controlled. In Wakhan, Khwaja Ibrahim Husain was the MulÁi leader, and in Sarikul, Shahzada Makin. Sayad Jafar Khan ruled what there is of the sect in Bokhara, Balkh, Kabul and Kunduz. “The PÎr” or “ancient sage,” however, was the historical Shah Nasir KhosrÔ, who is styled “a missionary of H. H. Aga Khan’s ancestor.” He is said to have had the complete “KelÁm-i-PÎr,” a book of which I have for so many years in vain tried to get a copy, although assisted by my friend, the Mihtar NizÁm-ul-Mulk of Yasin and ChitrÁl. The following extract from it, in one and the same breath, affirms and denies the special doctrine of metempsychosis and other notions opposed to the professed Muhammadanism of the MulÁis:

The Mukti or “Salvation.”

The MulÁi “A’qil” or “intelligent” = “initiated” [the singular of the Druse “U’qalÁ” or “initiated”] first asks, in inelegant and enigmatical Persian:

“Ala! In what I say, can I remain knowingly an Á’qil?” or “initiated” or “I remain knowingly an Á’qil, although what I say

1. “Come, solve for me a difficult story [or conjecture]

Come, tell me the Light which the spirit from the world-shape [this world of Phenomena]

When it becomes [gets] beyond [of] this shape, where [is] its abode and station? [place of descent = “manzil”]

Is its place [of existence] in plants or in the Higher Universe [the world above?]

Or in the Lower Universe between water, dust and clay” [or stone]? [the strata between the centre and the surface of the earth]

2. “If, knowingly, that secret, come and tell me: ‘Light’

And, if not, away! not knowing, without head-wandering, careless [care not]

Dear ones! The spirit of the knowing when it departs from these chains,

Does it become [wend] towards the skies [heavens]? Is that its Station obtaining?[133]

Or why in the shape of man [anthropomorphic shape] is the Adamite created?[134]

Nay (?) the perfect man [ko-burd] cultured perfect,[135] or ‘the ruling man [if] perfect, develops perfect culture’

But they who are not wanted [the useless] are ignorant doubters”

3. “Let me tell its Commentary; every one, Come! in the ear make it acceptable.

The present is one stride [or state of a man]

When they put him outside the body

They bind him in chains; he becomes with cow or ass entering

Another time his place [of staying] is the [world of] plants. They hold him [there]

He will remain inside these chains for three years [many a year] [under] that vain curse” [this is a vain word]

4. Al LÁy! Helper of Chosroes![136] Such secrets to men why recklessly impart? [it only makes them impudent] Not will say ever this the A’qil [or “the initiated one.”]

[The wise do not mention their religion; if they do, they only make the unwise impudent.]

So, after all, we have not been told the process or secret of after-life, whether ascending into air, descending into earth, renewing human life or migrating into animal, plant or stone. In fact, we are made to understand that our inquiry is folly and that its answer, whether true or not, is also folly. Yet are we allowed to conjecture the belief of “the initiated” in transmigration.

As for the MulÁis “being all things to all men” in matters of religion—Sunnis with Sunnis and Shiahs with Shiahs—this is, as already stated, a mere amplification of the Shiah doctrine of TaqqÎah or concealment in times of danger, to which I have specially referred in my “Dardistan.”

The leaning of the MulÁis is, of course, rather to poetical Shiism, with the chivalrous martyr A’li as its demigod or “next to God” in the A’lewia sect, than to prosaic and monotonous Sunniism, so that to strangers they seem to be Shiahs, as will be seen in an extract from a native Indian Diary[137] written some 20 years ago, and which, it may be incidentally stated, still throws much light on the present conflicts in Dir, Bajaur and other petty States bordering on our frontier. No stranger is allowed to see the KelÁm-i-Pir, which takes the place of the Koran with MulÁis, but in the most popular poem that is recited by them, the ImÁm-ul ZemÁn or Sahib-al-Zeman = the Imam or Lord of the Age (H. H. Aga Khan) is worshipped as the Monarch of this World, the visible incarnation of the Deity, offerings or a pilgrimage to whom dispenses a MulÁi from prayer, fasting or a visit to the sacred shrines of Mecca or Madina, or rather the Shiah KerbelÁ, the place of the martyrdom of Hasan and Husain, which Shiahs annually celebrate by what are inappropriately called “miracle plays,” but which really are “elegies,” and commemorative funeral recitations and processions. A person who has seen “the Lord of the Age” or who possesses some of the water in which he has washed his feet is an honoured guest in MulÁi countries. The poem above alluded to is a parallel to the Druse “Contract” which will be considered further on, and begins with an invocation for “Help, oh Ali.”

“Nobody will worship God, without worshipping Thee, Lord of the Age!

Jesus will descend from the fourth heaven to follow Thee, Lord of the Age!

Thy will alone will end the strife with Antichrist, Lord of the Age!

Thy beauty gives light to heaven, the sun and the moon, Lord of the Age!

May I be blessed by being under the dust of Thy feet, Lord of the Age!”

A MaulÁi is, if sincere, already dead to sin, and can, therefore, not commit any. He needs, therefore, no resurrection or last Judgment day. Obedience to the PÎr is his sole article of faith, and he holds his property, family and life at this Chief’s disposal.

I must now conclude this introduction to a comparison of the creeds of the Druses and of the MulÁis by quoting a few words from a rhapsody of A’li, repeated by the ordinary MaulÁis till the pious frenzy is at white heat:

“Oh A’li, to God, to God, oh A’li, my sole aim, the only one, our Mula A’li; My desire, the only our Mula A’li; My passion only the beauty of A’li; My longing day and night for union with A’li; Higher and Higher A’li, oh A’li; A’li is the Killer of difficulties, oh A’li; He is the Commander of the Faithful, namely A’li; That one is the ImÁm of the steadfast in faith, namely A’li,” and so on ad infinitum till we come to the natural connection between normal Shiism, its exaggeration into A’li worship, its mysterious interpretation of the self-sacrifice of Husain to save the world, and, finally, to all other aberrations of which Maulaism is one. The poem then goes into wild Turkish and Arabic measures, which exhausted my informant, Ghulam Haidar, who adds on behalf of himself, also in verse: “It is not proper that I should not answer the question which you ask me, but what am I to say? The answer from me is easy, but I see a difficulty in your way. Oh Ghulam Haidar” (thrice repeated). Then in prose. “In the night of Friday, the MulÁi men (in Hunza), instead of worship and prayer, taking Guitars and Drums (RabÁbs and ?affs) in their hands, play the above “Ghazals” on them. Then six old men, Akhunds (priests), having assembled, read (sing) them in the Mosque, when the men of the mass of the people gather and give ear to them:

‘“YÁ A’li, YÁ A’li, YÁ ImÁm-i-ZemÁn”’—

‘“Oh Ali, Oh Ali, Oh ImÁm (and Lord) of the Age”’—

is the mention (Chorus) which they take on their tongues. From the beginning of the evening till the morning they thus show their zeal; the Raja then as a reward of thanks for that worship bestows (gold dust to the value of) four tilas on the priests and gives them a quantity of butter of the weight of four measures and one sheep or big calf and one maund of wheat in order to hold a feast.”

II.—The Covenant of “the initiated” Druses.

The following is a rendering of the Covenant or Contract which the U’qalÁ or “the initiated” amongst the Druses are reciting in mysterious seclusion. It was overheard by my informant, an “uninitiated” Druse.[138] It formed, as it were, the evening prayer of his uncle and aunt. Although an educated and highly intelligent person, he was not aware of even its local interest, much less of its general historical and religious importance.

The Covenant = Al MithÁq:

“O Governor [ValÎ] of the Age,[139] may Allah’s blessing and peace be upon him” (this phrase seems intended to delude Muhammadans into the belief that the Druses have the same Allah or God, but it has an esoteric sense which will become apparent further on). “I put my confidence into ‘our spiritual head the Lord’ (literally ‘our Maula Al-HÁkim’) (here is one of the esoteric formulÆ)—‘the One, the Single, the Everlasting (Lord), the (serenely) Distinct from Duality and Number.’ (This is a protest not only against the female form of the Deity, but also against the notion of a distinct good and evil principle, an Ahriman or Ormuz, whilst its Muhammadan form would seem to outsiders to be merely a protest against giving any ‘companion to God.’) The initiator and the to be ‘initiated’ then go on repeating together the following, the former using the 3rd, and the latter the 1st, person. ‘I so and so’ (here comes name of the initiated), ‘son of such a one, confess firmly the confession to which he (or I) respond from his [or my] soul, and bears testimony to it upon his spirit, whilst in a condition of soundness of his spirit and of his body, and with the (acceptance of the passing of the) lawfulness of the order, obeying without reluctance and under no violence: that he verily absolves (himself) from all Religions and Dogmas and Faiths and Convictions, all of them, in the various species of their contradictions, and that he does not acknowledge anything except the obedience to our Maula Al-HÁkim, may his mention be glorious! and this obedience it is the worship, and that he will not associate in his worship any (other) that is past or is present, or is to come, and that he has verily entrusted his spirit and his body, and whatever is to him and the whole of what he may possess to our Maula Al-HÁkim, and that he is satisfied to fulfil all His orders unto himself and against himself without any contradiction, and not refusing anything and not denying (refusing) anything of His actions, whether this injures him or rejoices him, and that he, should he ever revert (apostatize) from the religion of our Maula Al-HÁkim which he has written upon his soul, and to which he has born testimony unto his spirit, that he shall be bereft (free) of the Creator, who is worshipped and deprived of the benefits of all the sanctions (rules, laws), and that he shall be considered as deserving the punishment of God, the High, may His mention be glorious! And that he, if he acknowledges that there is not to him in Heaven and not in the Earth an ImÁm in existence except our Maula Al-HÁkim” (this confession distinguishes the Druses of the Lebanon and the MulÁis of the Hindukush from the orthodox Shiahs, who believe in the coming of the ever-present Mahdi, or the twelfth ImÁm, a view that had been fostered by us in the SudÁn to our endless confusion by our inexcusable opposition to the Sultan of Turkey as the Khalifa of the Sunnis), “then will the mention of him (who only believes in Al-HÁkim) become glorious, and he will be of the MuwÁhidÎn (who profess the unity of God), who will (eventually) conquer.” (This appellation is common to the Druses and to the MulÁis, but is not admitted as being applicable to them by orthodox Shiahs or Sunnis. In retaliation they call the Sunni a dog, and the Shiah an ass.) “And (the above) has been written[140] in the month so and so of the year (chronology) of the I’d (festival) of our Maula Al-HÁkim, whose nation be glorious, whose Empire be strengthened to Him alone.” (The MaulÁi Chronology is said to begin with the special revelation of the ImÁm on the 17th Ramadan in the 559th year of the Hejira, at the castle of AlamÛt.)

The Special Recitation.

The following is repeated by Druses at the conclusion of their prayers: “May God’s blessing be upon him who speaks (confesses) the Lord of goodness and benefits. May God bless the Ruler of the Guidances (Hidaya); to him be profit and sufficiency. May God’s blessing be on our Lord the Hadi” (the Guide or “Mehdi” means one who is guided aright by God = the coming Messiah of the Shiah world,) “the ImÁm, the greatest of the perfect light” (this is an allusion to the 7th ImÁm, Ismail, descendant of the light[141] (Mohammed)), “who is waiting for the refuge (salvation) of all living beings. On Him may be (our) trust, and from him (may be) the peace. May God bless him and them whatever passes of nights and of days and of months and of years, whenever flashes the dawn of morning or night remains in darkness may abundant peace and trust be for ever! O Allah-humma!” (the mystic Muhammadan remnant of Elohim = Lords, Gods) “provide us with Thy contentment” (this is a play of words implying that our best “daily bread” is God’s contentment with us) “and with Their contentment” (this is either a Trinitarian or Polytheistic invocation to “Elohim”) “and with their intercession and with Thy mercy and with their mercy in this world and in the next! O our Maula! and Lord of the ImÁm” (this is indeed significant as to the pretensions of Al-HÁkim to the godhead, or to some dignity very near it).

Now comes an ancient curse with a modern application and an appeal to arms (whispered along the line of assembled Druses):

“Pray for the ornament of sons,

In the East the five[142] residing (compare also the Shiah ‘Panjtan’[143] and the five main Shiah sects)[144]

They say: Father Abraham has appeared,

and they announce the good tidings to the worshippers of One (the Druses).

They say: With the sword has Father Abraham appeared;

A violence to his enemies

O brethren! Prepare earnestly for the campaign,

Visiting the House of Mecca.

The House of Mecca and the sacred places,

On them has destruction been ordained.

Oh people of the Berbers! Extermination is lawful.

With the sword shall ye be sacrificed.

The French are coming with stealth.

The ‘A’ql’ [or ‘the body of the initiated’] will protect us with its sword.

Rejoice, people of China, in the hour of Thy arrival.

Welcome to thee, city of Arin (?), oh my Lady!” [Fatima?].

A Druse wedding-song may also be quoted here: (“Allah, billÁli, billÁli.”) The Chorus: “O God, with the pearls, with the pearls,” “Sway on to me, oh my Gazelle!” Song: “Thou maid who combest her (the bride’s) tresses, comb them gently, and give her no pain; for she is the daughter of nobles, accustomed to being a pet” [dellÁli]. Chorus: Allah, billÁli, billÁli; wa tanaqqalÍ, yÁ GhazÁli!

Another Song: “Sing the praises of the shore, oh daughters; sing the praises of the daughters of the shore; for we have passed by the pomegranate-tree bearing full fruit, and we have compared it with the cheeks of the daughters of the shore.”

(b) THE KELÁM-I-PÎR AND ESOTERIC MUHAMMADANISM.

It is not my wish to satisfy idle curiosity by describing the contents of a book, concealed for nine hundred years, the greater portion of which accident has placed in my hands after years of unsuccessful search in inhospitable regions. The fragmentary information regarding it and the practices of its followers which I had collected, were contributed to publications, like this Review, of specialists for specialists or for genuine Students of Oriental learning. Nothing could be more distressing to me than the formation of a band of “esoteric Muhammadans,” unacquainted with Arabic, which is the only key to the knowledge of IslÁm. The mastery of the original language of his holy Scripture is, still more emphatically, the sine quÂ non condition of a teacher, be he Christian, Muhammadan, or other “possessor of a sacred book.” Nor should anyone discuss another’s faith without knowing its religious texts in the original as well as its present practice.

The term “esoteric” has been so misused in connection with Buddhism, the least mystic of religions, by persons unacquainted with Sanscrit, Pali and modern Buddhism, that it has become unsafe to adopt it as describing the “inner” meaning of any faith. Were Buddha alive, he would regret having made the path of salvation so easy by abolishing the various stages of Brahminical preparation, through a studious, practical and useful life, for the final retirement, meditation, and Nirvana. Yet there are mysterious practices in the Tantric worship of “the Wisdom of the Knowable,” which Buddha alone brought to the masses that were to be emancipated from the Brahminical yoke. Even transparent Judaism has its Kabala, and the religion that brought God to Man has mysteries of grace and godliness, the real meaning of which is only known to the true Christian of one’s own sect or school. Thus open, easy and simple Muhammadanism has its two triumphant orthodoxies of Sunnis and ImamÎa Shiahs and 72 militant, or outwardly conforming, heterodoxies. Indeed, as long as words can be fought over, and even facts do not impress all alike, so long will the more or less proficient professors of a creed reach various degrees of “esoteric” knowledge.

It is the unknown merit of the religious system of the so-called Assassins of the Crusades to have discussed, dismissed and yet absorbed a number of faiths and philosophies. It adapted itself to various stages of knowledge among its proselytes from various creeds, whilst the circumstances of its birth, history and surroundings gave it a Muhammadan basis. Non omnia scimus omnes may be said by the most “initiated” Druse, Ismailian or “MulÁi,” the latter being the name by which I will, in future, designate all the ramifications of this remarkable system of Philosophy, Religion and Practical politics.

This system elaborates the principle that all truths, except one, are relative. It treats each man as it finds him, leading him through stages, complete in themselves, to the final secret. We, too, in a way admit that strong meat and drink are not the proper food for babes. We speak of professional training and of the professional spirit, of esprit de corps, terms which all have an “esoteric” sense, and imply preparation; indeed, every experience of life is an “initiation” which he, who has not undergone it, cannot “realize;” we, too, have medical and other works which the ordinary reader does not buy and which are, so far, “esoteric” to him, but we have not laid down in practice that he, who does not know, shall not teach or rule. This has been systematized, with a keen sense of proportion, by the Founders of the Ismailian sect. Fighting for its existence against rival Muhammadan bodies and in the conflicts of Christianity, Judaism, Magianism and various Philosophies, its emissaries applied the Pauline conduct of being “all things to all men” in order to gain converts.

After the establishment of mutual confidence, a Christian might be confronted with puzzling questions regarding the Trinity, the Atonement, the Holy Communion, etc.—the Jew be called to explain an Universal God, yet exclusively beneficent to His people, or might be cross-examined on the miracles of Moses; a Zoroastrian, to whom much sympathy should be expressed, would be sounded as to his Magian belief; an idolater, if ignorant, could be easily shown the error of his ways and, if not, his pantheism might be checked by the evidences of materialistic or monotheistic doctrine; the orthodox Sunni would be required to explain the apparent inconsistencies of statements in the KorÁn, and the various sects of Shiahs would be confounded by doubts being thrown on this or that link of the hereditary succession of the apostleship of Muhammad; sceptics, philosophers, word-splitters, both orthodox and heterodox, would be followed into their last retrenchments by contradictory arguments, materialistic, idealistic, exegetical, as the case may be. With every creed, to use an Indian simile, the peeling of the onion was repeated, in which, after one leaf after the other of the onion is taken off in search of the onion, no onion is found and nothing is left. The enquirer would thus be ready for the reception of such new doctrine as might be taught him by the “MulÁi”[145] preacher, or DÁi, who then revealed himself one step beyond the mental and moral capacity of his intended convert, whilst sharing with the latter a basis of common belief. Now this required ability of no mean order, as also of great variety, so as to be adapted to all conditions of men to whom the DÁi might address himself. Sex, age, profession, heredity and acquired qualities, antecedents and attainments, all were taken into consideration. At the same time, in an age of violence, the missionaries of the new faith had to keep their work a profound secret and to insist on a covenant, identical with, or similar to, the one of the Druses, which I published in the last number of the Asiatic Quarterly Review. Even when confronted by Hinduism, the new creed could represent that Áli, the son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad, was the 10th incarnation of Vishnu, which is expected, as was the Paraclete and as are the Messiah and the “Mehdi” (many of those who adopted that title being secret followers of the Ismailian creed).[146] I have pointed out in my last article how the very name of ’Ali, his chivalrous character, his eloquence, his sad death and the martyrdom of his sons lent themselves to his more than apotheosis in minds already prepared by Magian doctrine and the spirit of opposition to the successful Sunni oppressor. I think that I can quote extracts, in support of this statement from the “KelÁm-i-pÎr” or the “Logos of the Ancient,” showing how the contributor to it (for I take the “KelÁm-i-pÎr” to be a collective name like “Homer”), the eminent mathematician, historian and poet, Shah NÁsir KhosrÛ, who was born in the year 355 A.H. = 969 A.D. was led, after a long life of purity and piety, of abstemiousness and study, to examine and reject one religion after the other and, finally, adopt the one with which we are now concerned and of which His Highness, Agha Sultan Muhammad Shah is the present hereditary spiritual head. His authority extends from the Lebanon to the Hindukush and wherever else there may be Ismailians, who either openly profess obedience to him, as do the Khojahs in Bombay; or who are his secret followers in various parts of the Muhammadan world in Asia and Africa.[147] The present young, but enlightened, Chief is, as his father and grandfather, likely to exert his influence for good.

The following is a short biographical sketch of this lineal descendant of the prophet Áli. His genealogy is incontestable and will, I hope, be included in my next paper.[148]

“H. H. Agha Sultan Muhammad Shah was born at Karachi on Nov. 2nd, 1877. It was soon seen that it would be necessary to give him a good education, and his father, H. H. the late Agha Ali Shah, early grounded him in the history of Persia and the writings of its great poets. But this education was certainly not sufficient in the present day, and Lady Ali Shah, after the death of her husband, very wisely carried out his wishes by placing his son under an English tutor, so that, whilst Persian was by no means neglected, a course of English reading was begun. Four years ago he stumbled over the spelling of monosyllables. The progress made now is really surprising; with natural talents he has found it easy to acquire a thorough English accent and converses freely with Englishmen. The histories of Persia, India and England, the series of the Rulers of India and the Queen’s Prime Ministers, McCarthy’s ‘History of our Own Times’ and the lives of eminent men that stock his library, mark a predilection for History and Biography. The subjects of conversation during a morning’s ride are often the politics of the day or the turning points in the lives of illustrious men. But with this reading his other studies are not neglected. Algebra, Geometry, Arithmetic, elementary Astronomy, Chemistry and Mechanics, with English authors like Shakespeare, Macaulay, and Scott, form a part of his scholastic course.

“Unlike his father and grandfather, the Aga Sahib has little love for hunting, though he is seen regularly on the racecourse and is well known in India as a patron of the turf. In the peculiarity of his position it will be difficult for him to travel for some years, but his eyes are directed to Europe and he looks forward to the pleasure of witnessing at some future time an important debate in the House of Commons. From the fact that every mail brings English periodicals to his door, it will be seen that he closely follows everything that relates to English politics.

“With the work amongst the Khojahs and his other followers devolving upon him at so early an age his studies are, of course, liable to be interrupted, and it is hardly possible for him to devote himself to his books—Oriental and English—as much as he would wish to do. He is not yet married, nor does he seem inclined to marry early. A few years, however, must see him the father of a family, and there is little doubt that his children will be educated with all the advantages of the best ancient and modern education so as to make them worthy of their illustrious descent.”

How far His Highness will be himself initiated into more than the practice and rites, public and private, of so much of his form of the Ismailian Faith as is necessary for the maintenance of his position and responsibilities towards his followers, depends on his attainments, mental vigour, and character. With greater theoretical power than even the Pope, who is not hereditary, his influence is personal and representative by the consensus fidelium. Nearly all of them are in the first, or second, degree, even their Pirs being generally in the 3rd or 4th, with a general leaning to a mystic divine A’li, not merely the historical A’li, whom their followers see incarnated in his present living descendant. Few, if any, of the leaders are in higher degrees, for they might be out of touch with the practical exigencies of their position in different countries and circumstances. Perhaps, among the Druses, there may be one professor in the highest stage of the “initiated”—the Ninth—but even then he would take his choice of Philosophies and find a microcosm of theory and practice in each. The result on mind and character would be ennobling, and he would die, if, indeed, an “initiated” can die, carrying away with him the secret of his faith, which he alone has been found worthy to discover. What that secret is, no amount of divulging will impart to any one who is not fit to receive it, though the infinite variety of its manifestations adapt it to every form of thought or life. That even Masonic passwords may, for practical purposes and in spite of published books, be kept a secret, though possibly an open one, experience has shown, but the man does not yet exist who can, or will, apply the system, of which I have endeavoured to give a hint, to the Universal Federation of Religious Autonomies, which, in my humble opinion, the Ismailian doctrine was intended to found, little as its present followers may know of this use of the genuine ring of Truth, of which every religion, according to Lessing’s Nathan der Weise, claims to have the exclusive possession. If this be not enough, I will, at the outset, give the advice that the old man in Lavengro with his dying breath gave to his disciple as the reward of a life-long devotion to learn the great secret—“Learn Arabic”—as a variation on his “Learn German.” There is no royal road to learning or to salvation, and mental culture is impossible without the synthesis which the study of Classical languages—Oriental or European—still foster in this age of destructive analysis and of that scepticism which does not seek to re-construct.

Since writing above another accident has placed in my hands an evidently ancient manuscript in Persian verse, on the same or kindred subjects of Ismailian belief. The manuscript is duodecimo, about 200 pages in extent, and is written in exquisite miniature caligraphy. Its perusal may affect my decision as to the manner of dealing with the question, so far as the public is concerned; in the meanwhile, I am still in search of the name of its author, and of its date.

APPENDIX VIII.
ON THE
SCIENCES OF LANGUAGE AND OF ETHNOGRAPHY

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO

The Language and Customs of the People of Hunza

BEING A REPORT ON AN EXTEMPORE ADDRESS

By G. W. LEITNER, M.A., PH.D., LL.D., D.O.L., etc.

Publications of the Oriental Institute, Woking.

LONDON
SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO.
PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1890

ON THE SCIENCES OF LANGUAGE AND OF ETHNOGRAPHY:
With special reference to the Language and Customs of the People of Hunza.[149]

The time has long passed since grammar and its rules could be treated in the way to which we were accustomed at school. Vitality has now to be breathed into the dry bones of conjugations and declensions, and no language can be taught, even for mere practical purposes, without connecting custom and history with so-called “rules.” The influences of climate and of religion have to be considered, as well as the character of the people, if we wish to obtain a real hold on the language of our study. Do we desire to make language a speciality, the preparation of acquiring early in life two dissimilar languages, one analytic and the other synthetic, is absolutely necessary, because if that is not done, we shall always be hampered by the difficulty of dissociating the substance from the word which designates it. The human mind is extremely limited, and amongst the limits imposed upon it are those of, in early life, connecting an idea, fact, or process, with certain words; and unless two languages, at least, are learnt, and those two are as dissimilar as possible, one is always, more or less, the slave of routine in the perception and in the application of new facts and of new ideas, and in the adaptation of any matter of either theoretical or practical importance. It is a great advantage, for linguistic purposes, which are far more practically important than may be generally believed, that the study of the classical languages still holds the foremost place in this country; because, however necessary scientific “observation” may be, it cannot take the place of a cultured imagination. The stimulus of illustration and comparison, which, in the historical sense of the terms, is an absolutely necessary primary condition to mental advance, is derived from classical and literary pursuits. The study of two very similar languages, however, is not the same discipline to a beginner in linguistics; e.g., to learn French and Italian is not of the same value as French and German, for the more dissimilar the languages the better.

Again, if you desire to elicit a language of which you know nothing, from a savage who cannot explain it and who does not understand your language, there are certain processes with which some linguists, no doubt, are familiar, and others commend themselves in practical experience; for instance, in pointing to an object which you wish to have, say, a fruit which you want to eat, you may not only obtain the name for it, but the gesture to obtain it, if you are surrounded by several savages whose language you do not know, may also induce one of the men to order another to get it for you,—I suppose on the principle that it is easy for one to command and for others to obey; but, be that as it may, this course, to the attentive observer, first obtains the name for the required thing and next elicits the imperative; you hear something with a kind of inflection which, once heard, cannot be mistaken for anything else than the imperative. Further, the reply to the imperative would either elicit “yes,” or “no,” or the indicative present. This process of inquiry does not apply to all languages, but it applies to a great many; and the attitude which you have to assume towards every language that you know nothing about, in the midst of strangers who speak it, is that, of course, of an entirely sympathetic student. You have, indeed, to apply to language the dictum which Buddhist Lamas apply to religion—never to think, much less to say, that your own religion (in this case your own language) is the best; i.e., the form of expression in which you are in the habit of conveying your thoughts, is one so perfectly conventional, though rational in your case, that the greatest freedom from prejudice is as essential a consideration as the wish to acquire the language of others. In other words, in addition to the mere elementary acquisition of knowledge, you have to cultivate a sympathetic attitude; and here, again, is one of the proofs of a truth which my experience has taught me, that, however great knowledge may be, sympathy is greater, for sympathy enables us to fit the key which is given by knowledge. Gestures also elicit a response in dealing, for instance, with numerals, where we are facilitated by the fingers of the hand. Of course, one is occasionally stopped by a savage who cannot go, or is supposed not to be able to go, beyond two, or beyond five.

I take it that in the majority of cases of that kind, a good deal of our misconception with regard to the difficulty of the inquiry lies in ourselves—that ideas of multitude connected with the peculiar customs of the race that have yet to be ascertained, are at the bottom of the inability of that race to follow our numeration. For instance we go up to ten, and in order to elicit a name for eleven, we say “one, ten;” if the man laughs, change the order, and say “ten, one;” the chances are that the savage will instinctively rejoin “ten and one,” and we then get the conjunction. Putting the fingers of both hands together may mean “multitude,” “alliance,” or “enmity,” according as the customs of the race are interpreted by that gesture.

I am reminded of this particular instance in my experience, because I referred to it in a discussion on an admirable paper on the Kafirs of the Hindukush by the eminent Dr. Bellew. If you do not take custom along with a “rule,” and do not try to explain the so-called rule by either historical events or some custom of the race, you make language a matter entirely of memory, and as memory is one of the faculties that suffers most from advancing age, or from modes of living and various other circumstances, the moment that memory is impaired your linguistic knowledge must suffer—you, therefore, should make language a matter of judgment and of associations. If you do not do that, however great your linguistic knowledge or scholarship, you must eventually fail in doing justice to the subject or to those with whom you are dealing.

The same principle applies as much to a highly civilised language like Arabic, one of the most important languages in the way of expressing the multifarious processes of human thought and action, as to the remnant of the pre-historic Hunza language, which throws an unexpected light on the science of language.

Let us first take Arabic and the misconceptions of it by Arabic scholars. In 1859 I pointed out before the College of Preceptors, how it was necessary not only to discriminate between the Chapters in the Koran delivered at Mecca, and those given at Medina, but also to arrange the verses out of various Chapters in their real sequence. I believe we are now advancing towards a better understanding of this most remarkable book. But we still find in its translation such passages, for instance, as, “when in war women are captured, take those that are not married.” The meaning is nothing so arbitrary. The expression for “take” that we have there is ankohu—marry, i.e., take in marriage or nikÁh, as no alliance can be formed with even a willing captive taken in war, except through the process of nikÁh, which is the religious marriage contract. Again, we have the passage, “Kill the infidels wherever you find them.” There again is shown the want of sympathetic knowledge, which is distinct from the knowledge of our translators who render “qatilu” by “kill,” when it merely means “fight” and refers to an impending engagement with enemies who were then attacking Muhammed’s camp. Apart from accuracy of translation, a sympathetic attitude is also of practical importance. E.g., had we gone into Oriental questions with more sympathy and, in consequence, more real knowledge, many of our frontier wars would have been avoided, and there is not the least doubt that in dealing with Oriental humanity, whether we had taken a firm or a conciliatory course, we should have been upon a track more likely to lead to success than by taking action based on insufficient knowledge or on preconceptions. For instance, in the Times there was a telegram from Suakim about the Mahdi, to the effect that El Senousi was opposing him successfully. I do not know who El Senousi is, but very many years ago I pointed out the great importance of the Senousi sect in Africa, and, unless the deceased founder of that name has now arisen, whether it is a man of that name or the now well-known sect that is mentioned, one cannot say from the telegram. The sender of the message states that as sure as the El Senousi rises to importance there will be a danger to Egypt and to Islam. It is Christian like to think well of Islam, and to try to protect it. This very few Christians do, and it shows a kind feeling towards a sister-faith, but I am not sure that the writer accurately knew what Islam is; though there can be no doubt that the rise of fanatical sects, like the Senousi, which is largely due to the feeling of resistance created by the encroachments of so-called European civilisation, is opposed to orthodox Muhammedanism. Be that as it may, I have also turned to “the further correspondence on the affairs of Egypt” which a friend gave me, and, really, I now know rather less about Egypt than I did before. For instance, I find (and I am specially referring to the blue-book in my hand) that letters of the greatest importance from the Mahdi are treated in the following flippant manner: “This is nothing more or less than an unauthenticated copy of a letter sent by the deceased Mahdi to General Gordon!” Is this not enough to deserve attentive inquiry? General Gordon would, probably, not have agreed with the writer of this contemptuous remark, which is doubly out of place when we are also told that the Mahdi was sending Gordon certain verses and passages from the KorÁn, illustrative of his position, which are eliminated by the translator as unnecessary, of no importance, and of very little interest! Now, considering that this gentleman knew Arabic, I think I am right when I add that with a little more sympathy he would have known more, and had he known more he would have quoted those passages, for it is most necessary for us to know on what precise authority of the KorÁn or of tradition this so-called Mahdi based his claim, and knowledge of this kind would give us the opportunity of dealing with the matter. Again, on the question of Her Majesty’s title of “Kaisar-i-hind,” which, after great difficulty, I succeeded in carrying into general adoption in India, the previous translators of “Empress” had suggested some title which would either have been unintelligible or which would have given Her Majesty a disrespectful appellation, whilst none would have created that awe and respect which, I suppose, the translation of the Imperial title was intended to inspire. Even the subsequent official adopter of this title, Sir W. Muir, advocated it on grounds which would have rendered it inapplicable to India. With the National Anthem similarly, we had a translation by a Persian into Hindustani, which was supported by a number of Oriental scholars in this country, who either did not study it, or who dealt with the matter entirely from a theoretical point of view, and what was the result? The result was—that for “God Save the Queen,” a passage was put which was either blasphemous, or which, in popular Muhammedan acceptance, might mean, “God grant that Her Majesty may again marry!” whereas one of the glories of Her Majesty among her Hindu subjects is that she is a true “Satti” or Suttee, viz., a righteous widow, who ever honours the memory of her terrestrial and spiritual husband—neither of those views being intended by the translator, or by that very large and responsible body of men who supported him, and that still larger and emphatically loyal body that intended to give the translation of the National Anthem as a gift to India at a cost of several thousand pounds, when for a hundred rupees a dozen accurate and respectful versions were elicited by me in India itself.

I therefore submit that in speaking of the sciences of language and ethnography, we have, or ought to have, passed, long ago, the standpoint of treating them separately; they must be treated together, and, as I said at the beginning, taking, e.g., Arabic, with its thirty-six broken plurals (quite enough to break anybody’s memory), you will never be able to learn it unless you thoroughly realise the life of the Arab, as he gets out of his tent in the morning, milks his female camel, &c., and unless you follow him through his daily ride or occupations. Then you will understand how it is, especially if you have travelled in Arabia, that camels that appear at a distance on the horizon, affect the eye differently from camels when they come near, and are seen as they follow one another in a row, and those again different from the camels as they gather round the tent or encampment; and therefore it is that in the different perceptions to the eye, under the influence of natural phenomena, these multifarious plurals are of the greatest importance in examining the customs of the people. Then will the discovery of the right plural be a matter of enjoyment, leading one on to another discovery, and to work all the better; whereas, with the grammatical routine that we still pursue, I wonder, when we reach to middle or old age, after following the literary profession, that we are not more dull or confused than we are at present. When one abstract idea follows the other, as in our phraseology, it is not like one scene following another in a new country which is full of stimulus, but the course which we adopt of abstract generalisations, without analysing them and bringing them back to their concrete constituents, is almost a process of stultification.

Coming now to one of the most primitive, and certainly one of the remnants of pre-historic languages, that of Hunza, which I had the opportunity of examining twenty-three years ago, while Gilgit was in a state of warfare, and where I had to learn the language, so to speak, with a pencil in one hand and a weapon in the other, and surrounded by people who were waiting for an opportunity to kill me, I found, that on reverting to it three years ago, the language had already undergone a process of assimilation to the surrounding dialects, owing to the advance of so-called civilisation, which in that case, and which in the case of most of these tribes, means the introduction of drunkenness and disease, in this instance of cholera, for we know what has been the condition of those countries which lie in the triangle between Cashmere, Kabul, and Badakhshan, and to which I first gave the name of Dardistan in 1866.

Now, what does this language show us? There the ordinary methods proved entirely at fault. If one pointed to an object, quite apart from the ordinary difficulties of misapprehension, the man appealed to, for instance, might say “your finger,” if a finger were the thing of which he thought you wanted the name. If not satisfied with the name given in response, and you turned to somebody else, another name was obtained; and if you turned to a third person, you got a third name.

What was the reason for these differences? It was this, that the language had not emerged from the state in which it is impossible to have such a word as “head,” as distinguished from “my head,” or “thy head,” or “his head”; for instance, ak is “my name,” and ik is “his name.” Take away the pronominal sign, and you are left with k, which means nothing. Aus is “my wife,” and gus “thy wife.” The s alone has no meaning, and, in some cases, it seemed impossible to arrive at putting anything down correctly; but so it is in the initial stage of a language. In the Hunza language under discussion, that stage is important to us as members of the Aryan group, as the dissociation of the pronoun, verb, adverb and conjunction from the act or substance only occurs when the language emerges beyond the stage when the groping, as it were, of the human child between the meum and tuum, the first and second persons, approaches the clear perception of the outer world, the “suum,” the third person. Now, during the twenty years referred to “his” (house), “his” (name), and “his” (head) are beginning to take the place of “house,” “name,” “head,” generally, in not quite a decided manner, but still they are taking their place. When I subsequently talked to the Hunzas, and tried to find a reason for that “idiom,” if one may use the term, it seemed very clear and convincing when they said, “How is it possible for ‘a wife’ to exist unless she is somebody’s wife?” “You cannot say, for instance, if you dissociate the one from the other, ‘her wife,’ or ‘his husband.’ ‘Head,’ by itself, does not exist; it must be somebody’s head.” When, again, you dissociate the sound which stands for the action or substance from the pronoun, you come, in a certain group of words, to another range of thought connected with the primary family relation, and showing the existence of that particularly ancient form of endogamy, in which all the elder females are the mothers and all the elder men are the fathers of the tribe. For instance, take a word like “mother;” “m” would mean the female principle, “o” would be the self, and the ther would mean “the tribe;” in other words, “mother” would mean: “the female that bore me and that belongs to my tribe.” Now, fanciful as this may appear to us, it is the simple fact as regards the Hunza language, which, when put the test of analysis, will throw an incredible light on the history of Aryan words. For instance, taking Sanskrit as a typical language, you will, I believe, find how the early relations grew, and you will get beyond the root into the parts of which the root is made up; each of which has a meaning, not in one or two instances, but in most. I am not going to read you the volume which I am preparing for the Indian Government, and which is only the first part of the analysis with regard to this language, and only a very small portion indeed of the material that I collected in 1866, 1872, and 1884 regarding that important part of the world, Dardistan, which is now being drawn within the range of practical Indian politics—a region situated between the Hindukush and Kaghan (lat. 37° N. and long. 73° E. to lat. 35° N. and long. 74·3° E.) and comprising monarchies and republics, including a small republic of eleven houses—a region which contains the solution of numerous linguistic and ethnographical problems, the cradle of the Aryan race, inhabited by the most varied tribes, from which region I brought the first Hunza and the first KÁfir that ever visited England, and of which region one of its bigger Chiefs, owing to my sympathy with the people, invested me with a kind of titular governorship. In that comparatively small area the questions that are to be solved are great, and it is even now in some parts, perhaps, as hazardous a journey as, say, through the dark continent. Whether you get to the ancient Robber’s Seat of Hunza, where the right of plundering is hereditary, or into the recesses of Kafiristan or the fastnesses of Pakhtu settlers; whether you proceed to the republics of Darel, Tangir or ChilÁs, or proceed to the community where women are sometimes at the head of affairs, and which is neither worse nor better than others, an amount of information, especially ethnographic, is within one’s reach which makes Dardistan a region that would reward a number of explorers. I may say, in my own instance, if my life is spared for ten years longer, all I could do would be to bring out the mere material in my possession in a rough form, leaving the theories thereon to be elaborated by others. My difficulties were great, but my reward has been in a mass of material, for the elaboration of which International, Oriental, and other Congresses and learned societies have petitioned Government since 1866. My official duties have hitherto prevented my addressing myself to the congenial task of elaborating the material in conjunction with others. In 1886, I was, however, put for a few months on special duty in connexion with the Hunza language, at the very time that Colonel Lockhart was traversing a portion of Dardistan. But I think you will be more interested if, beyond personal observations, I tell you something about that little country of Hunza itself, which in many respects differs from those surrounding it, not only in regard to its peculiar language, which I have mentioned, but in other respects also. Unfortunately, it is also unlike the surrounding districts, in being characterised by customs the absence of some of which would be desirable. The Hunzas are nominal Muhammedans, and they use their mosques for drinking and dancing assemblies. Women are as free as air. There is little restriction in the relation of the sexes, and the management of the State, in theory, is attributed to fairies. No war is undertaken unless the fairy (whom, by the way, one is not allowed to see) gives the command by beating the sacred drum. The witches, who get into an ecstatic state, are the journalists, historians, and prophetesses of the tribe. They tell you what goes on in the surrounding valleys. They represent, as it were, the local Times; they tell you the past glories, such as they are, of raids and murders by their tribe; and when the Tham or ruler, who is supposed to be heaven-born (there being some mystery about the origin of his dynasty), does wrong, the only one who will dare to tell him the truth is the Dayal, or the witch who prophesies the future, and takes the opportunity of telling the Rajah that, unless he behaves in a manner worthy of his origin, he will come to grief! This is not a common form of popular representation to be met with, say, in India. Grimm’s fairy-tales sometimes seem to be translated into practise in Hunza-land, which offers material for discussion alike to those who search for the Huns and to those who search for the very different Honas.

Then with regard to religion, as I said before, though nominally Muhammedan, they are really deniers of all the important precepts of true Muhammedanism, which is opposed to drunkenness, introduces a real brotherhood, and enjoins great cleanliness as absolutely necessary before the spiritual purification by prayer can take place. The people are mostly MulÁis, but inferior in piety (?) to those of ZÉbak, ShignÁn, Wakhan, and other places. Now, what is that sect? It is represented by His Highness Prince Aga Khan, of Bombay, a person who is not half aware of his importance in those regions, where, till very recently, men were murdered as soon as looked at. One who acknowledges him or has brought some of the water with which he has washed his feet, would always be able to pass through those regions perfectly unharmed! I found my disguise as a Bokhara Mullah in 1866 to be quite useless, as a protection at Gilgit, whence men were kidnapped to be exchanged for a good hunting dog, but in Hunza they used to fill prisoners with gunpowder, and blow them up for general amusement. His Highness, who is much given to horse-racing, confines his spiritual administration to the collection of taxes throughout Central Asia from his followers or believers, and the believers themselves represent what is still left of the doctrine of the Sheik-ul-Jabl or the Ancient of the Mountain, the head of the so-called Assassins, a connexion of the Mahdi, if he was the Mahdi, or the supposed Mahdi in the Soudan. I consider he was not the Mahdi as foretold in Muhammedan tradition; but, be that as it may, the 7th ImÁm of the Shiahs has given rise to the sects both of the Druses in the Lebanon and to the Hunzas on the Pamir. They are the existing Ismailians, who, centuries ago, under the influence of Hashish, the Indian hemp, committed crimes throughout Christendom, and were the terror of Knight-Templars, as “HashÎshÎn,” corrupted into “Assassins.”

Now, I have been fortunate enough, owing to my friendship with the head of their tribe, to obtain some portions of the KelÁm-i-pÎr volume, which takes the place, really, of the KorÁn, and of which I have got a portion here. I thought it might not be unworthy of your society to bring this to your knowledge, as a very interesting remnant which throws, inter alia, considerable light not only on their doctrine, but also on the Crusades. By a similar favour, I have had the opportunity of hearing the MithÁq, or covenant of the Druses, and that covenant of the Druses is a kind of prayer they offer up to God, not only in connexion with the Old Man of the Mountain, the head of the assassins who began about 1022, but also with those mysterious rites which also take place in what I may call the fairy-land of Hunza. With regard to the covenants, or one of them, which the “U’qelÁ” or the “initiated” or “wise,” as distinguished from the “JuhelÁ” or “ignorant” “laity,” among the Druses, offer up every night, this was used by a so-called educated Druse, one who had been converted to Protestantism,—a very good thing: but, as often happens, with that denationalisation which renders his conversion useless as a means for the promotion of any religion, as there are no indigenous elements for its growth. Such a convert is often unable to obtain a knowledge of the practices of his still unconverted countrymen, as nobody can be looked upon with greater distrust than that native of a country who has unlearnt to think in his own language, and who cannot acquire a foreign language with its associations, which are part of the history of that language; he does not become an Englishman with English associations, but ceases to be a good native with his own indigenous associations. Therefore, in my humble opinion, of all the unfortunate specimens of mankind, the most degraded are those who, under the guise of being Europeanised and, therefore, reformers, have themselves the greatest necessity for reform. Their mind has become completely unhinged, thereby showing us that if we Europeans wish to do good among Orientals we can do so best by living good lives in the midst of professors of other religions, this being also in accordance with the 13th edict of Asoka.

This Druse covenant makes the mad Fatimite ruler of Egypt, HÁkim, the “Lord of the Universe.” As I said before, the present “Lord of the Universe”. for the Hunzas is the lineal descendant of the 7th ImÁm, a resident of Bombay, one to whom the MulÁis make pilgrimages, instead of going to Mecca or to KerbelÁ. You may imagine that, even as regards the Druses, there must be something higher than their “Lord of the Universe;” but, such as he is, it is with him that this covenant is made. Reverting to his living colleague, the Indian “Lord,” it may be stated that there are men scattered throughout India of whose influence we have only the faintest conception. I pointed out in 1866 that if anyone wanted to follow successfully my footsteps is Dardistan, he would have to get recommendations from His Highness Aga Khan of Bombay, and I am glad to say that Col. Lockhart has taken advantage of that recommendation. The Druse “Lord of the Universe” is regarded as one with whom nothing can be compared. The Druses are to render him the most implicit obedience, and to carry out his behests at the loss of everything, good name, wealth, and life, with the view of obtaining the favour of one who may be taken to be God; but the sentence is so constructed as to make him, if not God, only second to God; in other words, only just a discrimination between God as the distant ruler of the Universe and, perhaps, some lineal descendant of HÁkim, or rather, HÁkim himself as an ever-living being, as the ruler of this world. This and some other prayers, with some songs, one amongst which breathes the greatest hatred to Muhammedanism, and speaks of the destruction of Mecca as something to look forward to, seems to be deserving of study. There are also references in them to rites connected with Abraham. A full translation of these documents, compared with invocations in portions of the KorÁn, would, indeed, reward the attention of the student.

I will now again revert from the Druses of the Lebanon to the MulÁis in the Himalayas. I obtained the poem in my hand from the head of that sect, and the wording is such that it denies whilst affirming the immortality and transmigration of souls. It says, “It is no use telling the ignorant multitude what your faith is.” That is very much like what Lord Beaconsfield said—that all thinking men were of one religion, but they would not tell of what religion!—a wrong sentiment, but one that is embodied in the above poem. “Tell them,” continues the poem in effect, “if they want to know, in an answer of wisdom to a question of folly: ‘if your life has been bad you will descend into the stone the vegetable, or the animal; if your life has been good you will return as a better man. The chain of life is undivided. The animal that is sacrificed proceeds to a higher life.’ You cannot discriminate and yet deny individual life, and apportion that air, stone, or plant, to the animal and to man, but you ought to be punished for saying this to others!” And on this principle, at any rate, the Druses also act or acted, that that is no crime which is not found out; and a good many people, I am sorry to say, elsewhere, think much the same; whereas in Hunza they have gone beyond that stage, and care extremely little about their crimes being found out. The MithÁq and other religious utterances of the Druses and the KelÁm-i-PÎr of the Hunzas, if published together, with certain new information which we have regarding the Crusade of Richard Coeur-de-Lion, would, I think, were time given and the matter elaborated, indeed deserve the attention of the readers of the “Transactions.” It also seems strange that where such customs exist there should be a prize for virtue, but there is one in Hunza for wives who have remained faithful to their husbands, something like the French prize for rosiÈres.

Formerly Suttee was practised, but Suttee had rather the meaning of SÁthi or companion, as both husband and wife went to the funeral pyre. Prizes are similarly given to wives who have not quarrelled for, say, a certain number of years with their husbands. The most curious custom which seems to permeate these countries is to foster relationship in nursing, where a nurse and all her relations come not only within the prohibited degrees, which is against the spirit of Muhammedanism, but also create the only real bond of true attachment that I have seen in Dardistan, where other relatives seemed always engaged in murdering one another.

Nearly all the chiefs in Dardistan give their children to persons of low degree to nurse, and these and the children of the nurse become attached to them throughout life and are their only friends. But this foster-relationship is also taken in order to get rid of the consequences, say, of crime; for instance, in the case of adultery, or supposed adultery, the suspected person who declares that he enters into the relationship of a son to the woman with whom he is suspected, after a certain penalty, is really accepted in that position, and the trust is in no case betrayed. It is the only kind of forgiveness which is given in Dardistan generally to that sort of transgression; but, further than that, drinking milk with some one, or appointing some one as foster-father, which is done by crossing two vases of milk, creates the same relationship, except amongst the noble caste of Shins, who were expelled by the Brahmins from India or Kashmir, and who hold the cow in abhorence as one of their religious dogmas, whereas, in other ways, they are really Brahmins, among whom we find Hinduism peeping out through the thin crust of Muhammedanism.

The subject of caste, by the way, is also one which is generally misunderstood, and which, if developed on Christian lines, would give us the perfection of human society, and solve many of the problems with which we are dealing in Europe in more advanced civilisations. I have just read with concern some remarks against caste by Sir John Petheram, who has been in India some three or four years. I think that before people speak on subjects of such intricacy, they should take the position of students of the question, learn at least one of the classical and one of the vernacular languages of India, and then alone assume the role of teachers whilst continuing to be learners; even in regard to such subjects of infant-marriage and the prohibition of widow re-marriage, there is a side of the question which has not yet been put sufficiently before the British public. Infant-marriage, when properly carried out in the higher castes, is an adoption of the girl into the family where she and the husband grow up together and join in prayer in common, which is necessary for their respective salvation; there is much to learn in the way of tenderness, charity, and love, from some of the households in India, where we find a community constituted on the noblest principles of “the joint family,” with an admirable and economical subdivision of labour, which enables them to live for a mere trifle, and yet so to prepare their food that in every dish you can see the tender care of the woman who prepares it for the good of the husband and of the household.

Then, as to the widow re-marriage, it has not been sufficiently pointed out to the British public that spiritual marriage renders the re-marriage of the Hindu widow impossible, because she is necessary for the spiritual salvation of the husband, and because as the representative of his property she may be called on to be the head of the family, for many of them are at the head of the family, and their position, therefore, renders it simply impossible for them to re-marry. These are matters that we should treat with respect, especially if we seek to adapt them to the spirit of the age. There are also differences amongst Muhammedans as great as there are between a Christian who tries to follow the Sermon on the Mount and a nominal Christian. Science and religion, according to a Muhammedan saying, are twins, and if I understand the object of this Society, it is in order to make this twinship (if I may be allowed to use the expression) more real that your labours have been initiated, and that, under Providence, they have been carried to the successful results that have followed them both here and abroad.

Clyx.com

APPENDIX I. HUNZA, NAGYR, AND THE PAMIR REGIONS.[106]

APPENDIX II. NOTES ON RECENT EVENTS IN CHILÁS AND CHITRÁL.

APPENDIX III. FABLES, LEGENDS, AND SONGS OF CHITRAL[113] (called ChitrÁr by the natives).