[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Travellers (1500–1858)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel) › [Storia do Mogor](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci) › [Storia do Mogor (Irvine)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine) › 335.1 # Storia do Mogor 335.1 Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 335.1 - **Language:** English ### [335.1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1.1) \[The complaints of the Mogul emperor about European piracy on the high seas between Jeddah and Surat go back to 1693, or even to 1689 (Khafi Khan, ii. 421; Elliot and Dowson, 'Mahomedan Historians,' vii. 350; Hunter, 'British India,' ii. 265). The merchant 'Abd-ul-ghaffur, of Surat, who figures in the earlier dispute of 1693-94, is again prominent in that of 1703. The later trouble is to be traced more immediately to the so-called Muchalkahs (agreements) which Amanat Khan, the then faujdar of Surat, forced the Dutch, English, and French, to sign in February 1699. By these a guarantee was given to protect and convoy the Mogul ships, and to make good all losses from piracy. In the Dutch agreement a money payment was also stipulated for, but this clause was rejected by the Batavia Council. Their obligation to convoy the pilgrim ships to Mecca was, however, carried out for two or three years to the great injury of the Dutch Company, which lost three or four of its ships. Moreover, payment of the money was insisted on. Ketting, who had signed the bond, died on December 16, 1699, and was succeeded by Henry Zwaardekron, who tried hard for several years to secure its annulment. He, too, was imprisoned, and was not set at liberty till 1703, when his successor, Pieter de Vos, arrived with a fleet. Directly these ships had sailed, the violence recommenced against the new Director and the other officials (Dubois, 'Vies,' pp. 263 and 264, founded on Valentyn, iv. 170, 171). ### [335.1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1.2) On August 9, 1703, nine ships, belonging to Surat, arrived safely at that port from Jeddah and Makhah (Mocha), bringing a 'vast treasure.' Five ships, not then ready to sail, had been left at Mocha. On August 27, 1703, these laggards were 'off the island of St. John's, bending their course to Surat,' when two pirates bore down on them. Next day one ship, owned by 'Abd-ul-ghaffur, was taken near Surat. The smaller pirate stood after two merchantmen 'that had gone to the southward, and took one of them belonging to Cossim Chy (? Qasim Bhai).' The other, owned by 'Abd-ul-ghaffur, got safely into Bombay, though closely pursued as far as Old Woman's Island. On August 31 (1703), when the news reached Surat, the governor seized all the brokers of the European companies 'with your Honour's old brokers Vittul (? Baital) and Kyssa Parrack (? Kishna Parakh).' Gayer, the English agent, attempted unsuccessfully to provision their factory. But it was surrounded by soldiers, 'so that neither victuals, water, servants, nor anything else, might come near us, nor the least scrap of paper come in or go out.' The Mahomedans believed that the culprits were the English ship Regard and a smaller vessel from Bombay. ### [335.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1.3) The Dutch were dealt with like the English, but they were 'well stored with provisions.' The native brokers of the French Company and of the New (English) Company were released, but those of the Dutch and English were 'barbarously tortured.' Three lakhs of rupees were extorted from the 'Parakhs,' and three from the Dutch brokers. After thirteen days a small daily portion of provisions was admitted to the English and Dutch factories, and on October 13 three servants were allowed entrance. On November 26 matters were still in the same position. Up to February 16, 1704, the two factories were still guarded, but by a smaller number of men; also provisions and servants were more freely admitted, and all of the Europeans might walk about the city, 'except John Gayer and Stephen Colt.' On March 15, 1704, the guards were removed. At the request of Gayer, Nicholas Waite, the New Company's official at Bombay, sent the ships Samuel and Mary, and the sloop Beatrix, to 'lay before the bar' and go in search of the pirates. This was in September, 1703. In the same month seven Dutch ships arrived from Batavia and 'stopped the port' until, in February, 1704, 'matters were accommodated.' ### [335.1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1.4) The Dutch narrative of the same events exists in the Hague Archives, in three long covering letters from Pieter de Vos, Directeur, and six others of the Surat Council — two to headquarters at Batavia, dated February 27 and March 9, 1704, and one to their High Mightinesses at Amsterdam, dated April 17, 1704. There are thirty-four enclosures — eleven letters from Pieter de Vos to commanders of ships off Sūrat, dated between September 22, 1703, and February, 1704; two to Simon Langendan of the Zuiddorp; one from Adrian de Palensteyn of the Beverwyk to P. de Vos; five ruqqa'hs (notes) from P. de Vos to I'tibar Khan, the governor, and four replies from I'tibar Khan; one ruqqa'h to Qāzī Muhammad Sa'id; one ruqqa'h from A. de Palensteyn to I'tibar Khān, and the reply; an 'arzdāsht, or dispatch, from I'tibar Khan to the Mogul Court, dated November 24, 1703 (the addressee is 'Inayatullah Khan, chief Dīwān); ruqqa'hs from de Vos and Palensteyn to the new governor, Najabat Khan, and three ruqqa'hs from Najabat Khan to them, giving cover to a Hasb-ul-hukm (order by wazīr in the emperor's name), dated 8 Shawwal, year 48, 1115 H. (February 13, 1704); and, finally, a bond by the native merchants of Surat, executed on March 19, 1704. ### [335.1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1.5) In brief the story is this: When the news of the piracy reached Sūrat, I'tibar Khan proceeded to enforce the provisions of a muchalkah (a bond or agreement) extorted from the Europeans in February, 1699, by the then governor, Amanat Khan. On September 20, 1703, the Dutch ship Zuiddorp arrived, and on October 24 she was followed by the Beverwyk and five others. The port was blockaded, and a correspondence ensued. Finally, on November 24, 1703, I'tibar Khan made a report to court, his action was disapproved, and he was superseded by Najabat Khan. An imperial order was received on March 8, 1704, setting aside the agreement of February, 1699, and withdrawing all demands. A document was taken from the Surat merchants on March 19, 1704, to the effect that they had no further claims. From the English records we get the statement that, so early as September 23, 1703, the Mogul Court had become alarmed, and had called upon I'tibar Khan to report 'why he exacted money from the Hatmen on account of the late Pyracy.' On December 20 the English heard he was superseded by the faujdar of Malkher. This man was Najabat Khan, son of the Najabat Khan of Shahjahan's time and the first years of Aurangzeb. They then refer to the Hasb-ul-hukm of February 13, by which the dispute was closed for the time being (Factory Records, Surat, vols. xiii., c, and ci.; Original Correspondence, vol. lii.)\]. ### [335.1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1.6) A few days before the arrival of the European \[ships\] at this port (Surat), as I have stated above, the town was surrounded by the Shiva Ji \[the Mahrattahs\] with a force of 20,000 horsemen. They made considerable efforts to take the place, but they did not succeed, being driven away by the Europeans residing there. The Shiva Ji \[Mahrattahs\] returned, after having pillaged the suburbs and burnt \[154\] all that they could, to such an extent that they ruined the province and killed in it over three millions of people. At this period there appeared five Arab vessels from Mosquat (Masqat), and they went about ravaging and pillaging everywhere in the territory of Dumar (Daman), as they had done previously in the island of Salseita (Salsette), between the town of Bassahim (Bassain) and the island of Bombay. They stayed seven days, and stole all they could find, and with their plunder loaded fifteen ships. The more valuable part of the merchandise belonged to the Jesuits. Along with the goods they carried off all the best-looking among the natives of the country. This they did by reason of the violent resistance that had been offered to them. ### [335.1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1.7) The Viceroy of Goa, named Guaytana de Mello de Castro (son of the Anthoine de Mello de Castro of whom I have spoken in my First and Second Parts) (II. 129), sent in pursuit of these Arabs the general of the Portuguese forces, named Dom Anthoine de Menezes. On January 23, 1704, he attacked them with seven ships at three o'clock in the afternoon. The combat was a terrible one, continuing until the going down of the sun; but at last the Portuguese took two Arab vessels, and two others stood out to sea in a very damaged condition. It is not known whether they foundered or made for Masqat. One more of their ships was reduced to such straits that it retreated into the Surat river in company with six Arab merchantmen. He (Menezes) remained off the bar of Surat, so as to prevent the issue of the said vessels from that port. In the year 1702 Shah 'Alam being in the province of Kabul, one of his captains, named Pordelacam (Purdil Khan), son of Dalilcan (Diler Khan), of the Pathan race, wished to traverse with his cavalry a route by which Mogul armies were not accustomed to pass. Upon this the lord of the country, also of Pathan race, protested against his marching, and prayed him to adopt the usual route. He added that he would not allow the setting up of new usages affecting him and his people, and, if he acted to the contrary, he would experience exactly what had happened to Akbar's troops. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.travel.manucci~en-irvine.335.1) · Pramāṇa