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"

GENEALOGIES AND HISTORY OF DARDISTAN.

I do not propose to do more in this place than give the roughest outline of this subject, as sketched in 1866 and 1872, and now rapidly brought up to date. My reason is to prevent those falsifications of History which are inevitable when a conqueror annexes a new country and the vilest in it naturally becomes his first friends, and fabricate their family tree. Therefore, with all its errors, which subsequent enquiries have corrected, there is an element of actuality in the following accounts gathered from Dards in 1866, the value of which will become apparent when I write the history of the events that are drawing Dardistan into the devastating range of European influences and politics:

GENEALOGY OF THE GILGIT, YASIN, CHITRAL, NAGYR, HUNZA, AND OTHER DYNASTIES SINCE 1800.

I.—GILGIT

II.—YASIN DYNASTY.

It is said that both the Yasin and the Chitral dynasties are descended from a common ancestor “Kathôr.” The Gilgitis call the Yasînis “Poryalé” and the Chitralis “Katoré.”

Khushwakt(?) died 1800(?) from whom the present dynasty derives the name of “Khushwaktia.” [A Raja of that name and dignity often met me at Srinagar in 1886.]

He had two sons Suleyman Shah and Malik Amán Shah. The former died about 1829 and left four sons and a daughter whom he married to Ghazanfar, the Rajah of Hunza. The names of the sons are Azmat Shah the eldest, Ahmad Shah, Rahîm Khan and Zarmast Khan.

Malik Amán Shah was the father of seven or, as some say, of ten sons, the most famous of whom was Gauhar Aman, surnamed “Adam farosh” (the man-seller) the third son. The names of the sons are: Khuda Amán Duda Amán, Gauhar Amán, Khalîl Amán, Akhar Amán (who was killed by his nephew Malik Amán, eldest son of his brother Gauhar Amán): Isa Bahadur (son of Malik Amán Shah by a concubine), Gulsher, Mahter Sakhi, Bahadur Khan (who was murdered) and Mir Amán(?) of Mistuch(?)

Gauhar Amán left seven sons: Malik Amán (also called Mîr Kammu? now in Tangîr?) Bahadur Amán, murdered by Lochan Singh, Mir Vali (who killed Hayward), Mir Gházi, Pahlwan (who killed Mir Vali), Khan Daurán and Shajáyat Khan. [The Khushwaktia Dynasty has since been dispossessed by the kindred dynasty of Chitrál in 1884.]

III.—CHITRAL OR “SHAH KATHORIA” DYNASTY.

Shah Kathor, the son of Shah Afzal, (who died about 1800) was a soldier of fortune who dispossessed the former ruler, whose grandson Vigne saw in the service of Ahmad Shah, the independent ruler of Little Tibet in 1835. Cunningham considers that the name of Kathôr is a title that has been borne by the rulers of Chitrál for 2,000 years.

Shah Kathor had a brother, Sarbaland Khan, whose descendants do not concern us, and four sons and a daughter married to Gauhar Amán of Yasin. The names of the sons were: Shah Afzal (who died in 1858), Tajammul Shah who was killed in 1865 by his nephew Adam-khor—or man-eater—(so called from his murderous disposition; his real name was Muhtarim Shah), Ghazab Shah (who died a natural death) and Afrasiab (who was killed). The murdered Tajammul Shah left two sons namely Malik Shah (who revenged his father’s death by killing Adam Khôr), and Sayad Ali Shah.

Shah Afzal left Amán-ul-Mulk, his eldest son, the present ruler of Chitrál [1872] Adam-khôr (who usurped the rule for a time); Kohkán Beg, ruler of Drus; a daughter whom he married to Rahmat-ulla-Khan, chief of Dîr; Muhammad Ali Beg; Yadgar Beg; Bahadur Khan; and another daughter whom Gauhar-Amán married as well as Shah Afzal’s sister and had Pahlwan by her.

Amán-ul-Mulk married a daughter of the late Ghazan Khan, chief of Dîr, by whom he had Sardar (his eldest son), also called Nizam-ul-Mulk. Amán-ul-Mulk’s other sons are Murad and others whose names will be found elsewhere. One of his daughters is married to Jehandar Shah, the former ruler of Badakhshán and the other to the son of the present Chief, Mîr Mahmud Shah. [Full details are given elsewhere of the Yasin-Chitrál house.]

IV.—The names of the principal chiefs of the Chilâsis and of the Yaghistanis (the independent Hill tribes of Darêl, Hôdûr, Tangìr, etc.) have already been given in my “history” of their “Wars with Kashmir.” Just as in Chilâs and Kandiá, the administration is in the hands of a Board of Elders. The Maharaja of Kashmir only obtains tribute from three villages in Chilaz, viz., the villages of Chilás, Takk and Bundar.

V.—Nagyr,[82]

[is tributary to Ahmad Shah of Little Tibet about the beginning of this century, but soon throws off this allegiance to Ahmad Shah under Alif Khan.](?)

[See “Historical Legend of the Origin of Gilgit,” pages 9 to 16. The Nagyr-Hunza Rajas or Thams similarly claim a divine origin and account for it through the two fairy-brothers who disappeared at Gilgit. See note on page 111.]

[“Nagyr,” which Col. Biddulph very properly writes “Nager” (like “Pamèr”) is now spelt “Nagar,” so as to confound it with the Indian “Nagar” for “town,” from which it is quite different.]

VI.—Hunza

VII.—Badakhshan

Yusuf Ali Khan had seven sons: Mirza Kalán, surnamed Mir Jan; Hazrat Ján; Ismail Khan; Akbar Khan; Umr Khan, Sultan Shah; Abdurrahim Khan (by a concubine).

Saad-ulla Khan had two sons: Baba Khan and Mahmud Khan (by a concubine).

VIII.—Dir

The connection of Little Tibet with the Dard countries had ceased before 1800.

ROUGH CHRONOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF DARDISTAN SINCE 1800.

So far my “Dardistan,” in which a detailed “History of the Wars with Kashmir” will be found. The events since 1872 need only to be indicated here in rough outline, and, unfortunately, confirm my worst anticipations as to the destruction of the independence of the Dardu tribes, of their legendary lore, and, above all, of the purity of their languages, including the prehistoric Khajuná or “Burishki” spoken in Hunza-Nagyr, and a part of Yasin. What are the admitted encroachments of our Ally, the Maharaja of Kashmir, have been utilized in our supposed interests, and we have stepped in to profit, as we foolishly think, by his sins, whilst he is tricked out of their reward. Falsely alleging that Hunza-Nagyr were rebellious vassals of Kashmir, when Hunza at all events was under Chinese protectorate, we have reduced their patriotic defenders to practical servitude, and, by to-day’s Times (21st November, 1892), are starting, along with 250 rifles and two guns, some 100 men of a Hunza levy to Chitrál to put down a trouble which our ill-judged interference has created in another independent principality, where we have put aside the rightful heir, Nizám-ul-Mulk, for his younger brother, Afzul-ul-Mulk, on the pretext that the former was intriguing with the Russians. I believe this allegation to be absolutely false, for I know him to be most friendly to British interests. In 1886 he offered to send a thousand men from Warshigum over the passes to the relief of Colonel (now General Sir) W. Lockhart, then a temporary prisoner at Panjah Fort in Affghan hands. As Padishah of Turikoh, Nizám-ul-Mulk was, in his father’s life-time, the acknowledged heir to the Chitrál throne, and he was made by his father Raja of Yasin in succession to Afzul, who had taken it in 1884 from Mir Amán, the maternal uncle of Pehliwán, who was ruler of Yasin in 1880, when Colonel Biddulph wrote his “Tribes of the Hindukush,” and with whom the Khushwaqtia dynasty, as such, came to an end. This Pehliwan killed Mir Wali, the murderer of Hayward, but Pehliwan made the mistake of attacking Biddulph in 1880, and was ousted by Mir Amán. With Nizám-ul-Mulk, therefore, begins the rule over Yasin by the Kathoria Dynasty of Chitrál. He is now a fugitive at Gilgit; had he been intriguing with Russia he would certainly not have sought refuge from his brother in the British lion’s mouth at Gilgit. All I can say is that in 1886 he did not even know the name of Russia, and that when he wrote to me in 1887 he referred to the advent of the French explorers Capus, Pepin and Bonvalot, as follows: “they call themselves sometimes French, and at other times Russians.” In the “Asiatic Quarterly Review” of January, 1891, there is a paper from Raja Nizám-ul-Mulk on “the Legends of Chitrál.” He is thus the first Central Asian prince whose literary effusion has appeared in the pages of a British, or indeed of any other, Review. His first letters, sent in the hollow of a twig, like his latter ones sent through British officers, all breathe a spirit of what might be called the sincerest loyalty to the Queen-Empress, were he not an absolutely independent ruler. There will be an evil day of reckoning when the “meddling and muddling,” which has created the Russian Frankenstein, will be followed by the exasperation of princes and people, within and beyond our legitimate frontier. To revert to Hunza and Nagyr, Mr. F. Drew, an Assistant Master of Eton College, who was in the service of the Maharaja of Kashmir, wrote in 1877 in his “Northern Barrier of India”—which, alas! our practical annexation of Kashmir, and our interference with the Hindukush tribes are breaking down—as follows: “Hunza and Nagyr are two small independent rajaships. Nagyr has generally shown a desire to be on friendly terms with the Dogras at Gilgit, while Hunza has been a thorn in their side.” There is not a word here of these States being tributaries of Kashmir, whilst Colonel Biddulph, who was our Resident at Gilgit, shows that the last Hunza raid was committed in 1867, and that slavery and kidnapping were unknown in inoffensive, if not “timid,” Nagyr. My article in the “Asiatic Quarterly Review” of January, 1892, shows that raiding and slavery had been recently revived in consequence of alike Russian and English advances, and that the fussiness and ambition of our officials have alone indicated and paved “the nearest way to India.”

Woking, 21st November, 1892.

P.S.—In correcting this proof of a paper on the Fairy-land that adjoins “the Roof of the World,” which our imprudence has drawn within the range of practical politics, I never anticipated that I should have to refer to my “rough sketch of the History of Dardistan” brought down to 1872 as a refutation of the history written to order by some of our leading journals which, to suit the policy of the moment, would make the Amir of Affghanistan responsible for Badakhshan, and yet blame him for interfering with Chitrál, as is hinted in a telegram in to-day’s Times. I shall deal with this matter elsewhere. (See also Appendix II.)

Woking, 29th November, 1892.

HISTORY OF THE DARD WARS WITH KASHMIR

In 5 Chapters—(Chapter I. Chilás)

(Committed to writing from the statements of a Sazíni Dard who took part in many of the engagements.)

Introduction. (Juin, 1893.)

Chilás has already been referred to in my “rough Chronological Sketch of the History of Dardistan from 1800 to 1892.”[88] I now propose to republish “the History of the Wars of the Dard tribes with Kashmir” beginning with the account given to me by a Sazîni Dard in 1866 of the first war with the Chilásis.[89] Its importance at the present moment, consists in the fact that these wars with the Dards were almost all provoked by Kashmir, as they, practically, now are by ourselves. The attack on peaceful and pious Nagyr was excused by the usual calumnies that precede and justify annexation, till their exposure comes too late either to prevent aggression or to punish their authors, who, if soldiers, obtain honours, and if writers, an evanescent popularity. Now that the manuscripts of the Hunza Library have been sold by auction, that its fairies have been silenced, that its ancient weapons have been destroyed, that its language and religion have been assimilated to those of its neighbours, a living chapter has disappeared of the most ancient traditions of mankind safe in their mountain recesses for ages, till English and Russian subalterns wanted promotion at the expense of the safety of their respective Asiatic Empires. In 1866, I already pointed out that the Legends and Customs of the Dards were gradually vanishing before the incidental inroads of Orthodox Sunni Muhammadanism and that their preservation was a duty of the civilized world. Now we have simply killed them outright as also a number of interesting Aryan republics, like Chilás and other picturesque and peaceful autonomies. In 1875, Mr. Drew reported that the abhorrence of the Shin race to the cow, which probably marked the almost pre-historical separation of the Dáradas, the lowest of the twice-born, from the Brahmins of Kashmir, was ceasing, and in 1886 I saw a son of the excellent Raja of Nagyr in European garb all except the head-dress. Now that his country is practically annexed, its Chief is called “patriarchal,” just as the Chilásis are now patted on the back “as brave and by no means quarrelsome” by journals which a few months ago termed them “raiders,” “kidnappers”, “robbers” and “slave-dealers,” etc., forgetting that there exist the annual reports of our Deputy Commissioners of Abbottabad speaking of them since 1856 as a peaceable people. No doubt before that date, the Sunni Chilásis raided Shiah Astor, just as the Astoris raided what they could.[90]

The following account, it will be seen, and my own notes, do not, in the least, palliate the shortcomings of the Dards, but I maintain that there were no raids since 1856, and that in 1866 six Kashmir Sepoys, (not 6,000, as alleged by a recent writer) kept the Astor-Bunji road in a state of perfect safety; there were, no doubt, small detachments of troops at these places themselves, not to protect the road against the puritanical peasantry of Chilás, but as Depôts for the then War with all the united Dard tribes except Chilás. Yet we are told by a recent writer, ignorant of Dard Languages and History, that we took Chilás in order to protect Kashmir from raids (which had ceased for 42 years), that we spend less on the safety of the frontier than Kashmir, that the Nagyr Raja was a slave-dealer, etc., etc. Fortunately, we have official and other reports written before the passions of the moment obscured historical truth, and these Reports will long bear witness against the vandalism and folly by which our Northern Barrier of India was broken down and a military road was constructed for an invader to the heart of the Panjab. This road is the one from Abbottabad to Hunza, of which I obtained the particulars in 1866 (when I was sent on a linguistic Mission by the Panjab Government to Kashmir and Chilás), but which, for obvious reasons, I did not publish. Now that the Indian papers constantly urge and discuss its construction, I have no hesitation in giving the details of this, as I have of other roads and as now ought to be done of the various means of communication throughout what was once called, and what should, and could, for ever have remained, the “neutral zone” between the British and the Russian spheres of influence or interference. The first part of the projected road is to Chilás, and extends, roughly speaking, for 125 miles, namely Abbottabad to Mansehra 16 miles; Mansehra to Juba 10 miles; thence to Balakôt 12 miles; Kawaie 12, Jared 12, Kaghan 12, Naran 14, Batakundi 6, Burawaie 6, Sehri 5, Lulusar (where there is a fine lake 11,000 feet over the sea level) 5, Chilás 15. (For details see elsewhere.) Of this 15 miles are on independent territory, so that there was no occasion for the precipitate subjugation of an inoffensive population, whose sense of security is so great that they abandon their houses entirely unprotected during the hottest part of the summer when they leave with their families for the cooler surrounding hills. In another Dard republic, full of Arabic Scholars, Kandiá, there are no forts, and weapons may not be carried. Major Abbott, from whom Abbottabad so deservedly takes its name, reporting to the Lahore Board of Administration in July 1855, when the Maharaja of Kashmir had misinformed him of the successful conclusion of his campaign against Chilás and had asked the British Government, “whether he was to hold it with garrison, or to punish the people by burning their villages and then to retreat,” gave as his opinion that the latter course would exasperate the Chilásis into renewing their incursions, and that on the other hand “the possession of Chilás by Jummoo would altogether destroy the hopes of the Syuds of Kaghan. And as the odium of this very unpopular expedition has been carefully attributed to the British Government by the Maharaja’s Ministers, so much of advantage may possibly be derived from it.” I must now allow my Sazîni and other Dards to give an account of Wars which not only include the struggles for the conquest of Chilás, but detail the expeditions to Hunzá-Nagyr, the massacre of women and children at Yasin, the Dareyl and other conflicts, all interspersed with characteristic anecdotes and the names of men and places that have, or may yet, come to the front.

Routes to Chilás.

The manners, tribal sub-divisions, and occupations of the Chilásis and the names of the mountains, streams, products, etc., of the country, as also the road from Takk to Kashmir by the Kanagamunn pass, Diúng, Shiril, Koja, Ujatt, etc., are detailed in my “Dardistan,” where a Chilási vocabulary, dialogues, songs, etc., will also be found. There are also roads from Abbottabad to Chilás through Agrôr, of Black Mountain fame, practicable for camels. Another road, fit for ponies, goes by Muzafarabad by Sharidi and the lovely Kishenganga and Sargan Rivers in Kashmir, by the Kamakduri Galli, to Niát in Chilás. As already mentioned, the easiest road to our last conquest is by Kaghan through the Takk valley. There is also the long and dangerous road on the banks of the Indus to Bunji, which skirts, as its occupation would irritate, the Kohistani tribes who are Pathans, not Dards, including the rival traders with Gilgit of Koli-Palus. Thence, on that route, comes Jalkot and the road that branches off into learned Kandiá, which I have described at length in the A.Q.R. of July 1892. The road, such as it is, constantly crosses and recrosses the Indus (by rafts), and at the Lahtar river is reached the boundary between the true Kohistan and the Dard country, which is there called Shináki, because it is inhabited by the ruling Shiná race. We then come to pretty Sazín, from which my Sazîní informant. Opposite to it runs the Tangir valley and country, whence there is a road to Yasin to which Tangîr owed a sort of loose bond. We then continue by the right bank of the Indus opposite Sazín, passing Shatiál and on to the Dareyl stream, which comes from the Dareyl country that eventually joins on to Gilgit. Crossing the Dareyl stream, we pass Harban on the left bank and a few miles further on, the Tor village, and arrive at the Hôdur village, whence we go on to Chilás, after as bad a road of about 200 miles as it is possible to conceive. Besides, if we touch the independence of these various republics en route, we shall constantly be in a hornets’ nest, and provoke the coalition of the Dard with the Pathan or Afghan irreconcilable tribes, whereas, by keeping to the Kashmir route or, at least, confining ourselves to the Kaghan-Chilás road, and prohibiting our men from going to the right or to the left of it, we may yet resume friendly relations with the harmless and religious Chilásis and keep the road open for the eventual advance of Russian troops! In the meanwhile, let us not destroy villages inhabited by hereditary genealogists, who, before our advent, were the living historians of an irrecoverable portion of, perhaps, the earliest Aryan settlements.

I. STRUGGLES FOR THE CONQUEST OF CHILAS.

“About twenty-three years ago there was a very strong fort at Chilás. Two years before the outbreak of the wars, a man named Lassu came [on the part of Kashmír?] to the frontier of Chilás. This man’s ancestors had been in the service of the Dogras and for ninety years had possessed property and the Sirdarship at Goré (?) (probably Guraïz) in the family. It is not known why or whether he was dismissed the Kashmîr service, but he came with his family in 1847 to Chilás and became the cause of all the subsequent disturbances. This man had been renowned for bravery in his youth, but when he came was old and feeble, though full of intrigue. In the valley of Marungá is a place called Neyátt, where he established himself with about twenty families of Kashmiris and others, who had followed him from Guraiz. His two brothers were also with him. Where he fixed his residence there is—at some distance below—a village of the name of Gôsher, inhabited by the people of Takk. The valley is called Karúngá at its exit. In these two years he cultivated his fields and the friendship of the Chilásis. Purchasing also cattle and horses he became a great chief, to whom the Chilásis used to pay visits of ceremony. He also used constantly to visit them, and when he had acquired a decisive influence, he assembled all the Lumberdars of Chilás and said, “What a pity that Astór being so near, whose inhabitants are all Shiahs, you should not attack them according to the Shera’ [religious Law].” The ignorant Chilásis then began to go on plundering excursions in the direction of Astor, which were often successful. When the Governor of Astór became unable to resist these attacks, he requested the assistance of the Maharaja of Kashmîr, who refused it to him, but himself advanced direct on Chilás with an army. (In this war I was present for about a month.) One day a battle began in the early morning and lasted till the evening. The Maharaja’s army drove us right into the Chilás Fort. We sent off men at once in all directions for help. For two days there was no other engagement. On the 3rd day came allies of the valley of Gîne, from Darêl, Jalkôt, Takk and Torr, Harbànn, Shatiál, Sazín, Hudúr, Kóli, and 200 Tangîris (we were in all about 20 “thousand” men, women and children, in that great fort[91]). They poured in all day, and by evening the struggle was renewed in which, as I saw myself, women took part. As the Sikhs were pressing on to the walls, the women threw bedsteads and planks on their heads; stones and kitchen-utensils were also used. The result was not decisive. A stream was flowing into the fort in which we had four reservoirs kept filled in case of need. Hêmur, a brave man, whose son Sadur is now a Chief, a Yashkunn,[92] sat there giving a pumpkin full of water (about half a pint) to a man during the day and a pint at night, as it was more quiet then. There was a row of men stationed handing the gourd in and out and taking care that nobody got more than his share. Often we went without food for two days. The Chilási women cooked and cast bullets—the other women chiefly fought. The besiegers diverted the stream from the fort into the valley. We then drank the water of the reservoirs. This lasted for a month. We only lost in killed about three or four a day, as we fought behind cover. The enemy lost from 80 to 120 a day as they were in the open plain. When their provisions failed and supplies did not reach them, they retired with the loss of a third of their army, their treasury and goods. (300 women were appointed for the purpose of working and casting bullets all day.) In the day time we used to exchange shots—at night we would attack their camp, when they were tired or asleep. The walls were loopholed for the guns, and altogether the management of the affair was very good. We looted 100 mule-loads of powder: as much of lead, 40 tents—100 beds (charpoys), 2 boxes filled with money (Chilkis[93])—50 sound muskets and 150 injured muskets,—120 brass kettles—50 brass jugs—200 sheets and 400 brass gharras (pitchers)—100 shawls, good and bad—200 Chaplis (sandals)—20 chairs—5 loads of sticks—200 lances—200 bayonets—a heap of 100 swords—20 daggers—20 iron hammers, 130 tent pegs of iron and 800 of wood—2 big guns—3 field guns, and miscellaneous property too numerous and various to detail. Two days after the flight of the Dogras the people assembled and began to divide the spoil. We began by giving 10 Chilkis to each man, but it did not last for all; so, whoever got no money, took a gun, lance, tent, etc. The big guns were put into the fort. I was shot in the leg in that siege. We used to bury our dead in their clothes within two or three days of their death. The Sikhs also used to burn, and the besieging Muslims in their service to bury, the dead for some time. When, however, the casualties increased, the besiegers gave up attending to the dead. It was in the midst of summer; so the stench was very great and disease also spread in the Sikh camp. Seven days after the flight of the enemy, the tribes who had come to help left for their own places. The following is the list of the Sirdars killed in the siege: Deyûri Khan, a Shîn, one-eyed, Sirdar of Chilás; Hashm Shah, a Shîn, of Chilás; Nasr Ali Khan, a Yashkunn, of Chilás; Malik Faulád, a Yashkunn, of Harbenn. The following Sirdars survived: Rahmat Ulla, Shîn, Chilási; Akbari, Shîn, Lamberdar of Takk; Murad Shah, Yashkunn of Tòrr; Adam Shah, Yashkunn of Tòrr; Bahádur (Baghdúr), Shîn of Harbánn; Naik Numa, a Kamìn, Harbann; Faizulla Khan, Shîn, Harbann; Mard Shah, Kamìn of Shatiál; Shah Jehán, Kamìn of Shatiál; Malek Nazr-ud-din, Shîn of Sazin; Hajem Khan, Shîn of Sazin; Lala Khan, Yashkkunn of Dareyl; Jeldár, Yashkkunn of Dareyl; Izzat, Shîn of Phúgotsh (Dareyl); Rahmi, Shîn of Samagiál in Dareyl; Matshar Khan (a great Sirdár) Shîn, Samagial; Losîn, Shîn of Barzîn; Mirza Khan, Shîn, Barzîn; Shah Merdán, Shîn of Hudúr; Kazilbik, Yashkunn of Búder.