secrets, although, perhaps, they condone the offence by making him live for ever after in fairy-land. Indeed, the more we look into the national life of the Dards the less do we find it tinctured by Muhammadan distaste of compromise. Outwardly their customs may conform to that ceremonial, but when they make death an opportunity for jokes and amusement we cannot refuse attention to the circumstance by merely explaining it away on the ground that they are savages. I have noticed the prevalence of caste among them, how proud they are of their Shîn descent, how little (with the exception of the more devout Chilâsis) they draw upon Scripture for their personal names, how they honour women and how they like the dog, an animal deemed unclean by other Muhammadans. The Dards had no hesitation in eating with me, but I should not be surprised to hear that they did not do so when Mr. Hayward visited them, for the Hinduized Mussulman servants that one takes on tours might have availed themselves of their supposed superior knowledge of the faith to inform the natives that they were making an improper concession to an infidel. A good many Dards, however, have the impression that the English are Mussulmans—a belief that would not deter them from killing or robbing a European traveller in some districts, if he had anything “worth taking.” Gouhar-Amán [called “Gôrmán” by the people] of Yasin used to say that as the Koran, the word of God, was sold, there could be no objection to sell an expounder of the word of God, a Mulla, who unfortunately fell into his hands. I did not meet any real Shîn who was a Mulla,[52] but I have no doubt that, especially in Hunza, they are using the services of Mullas in order to give a religious sanction to their predatory excursions. I have said that the Dards were generally Shiahs—perhaps I ought not to include the Shiah Hunzas among Dards as they speak a non-Aryan language unlike any other that I know[53]—and as a rule the Shiahs are preyed upon by Sunnis. Shiah children are kidnapped by Sunnis as an act both religious and profitable. Shiahs have to go through the markets of Bokhara denying their religion, for which deception, by the way, they have the sanction of their own priests.[54] Can we, therefore, wonder that the Mulái Hunzas make the best of both worlds by preferring to kidnap Sunnis to their own co-religionists? A very curious fact is the attachment of Shiahs to their distant priesthood. We know how the Indian Shiahs look to Persia; how all expect the advent of their Messiah, the Imám Mahdi; how the appointment of Kazis (civil functionaries) is made through the Mujtehid [a kind of high priest] and is ratified by the ruling power, rather than emanate direct from the secular authorities, as is the case with Sunnis. The well-known Sayad residing at Bombay, Agha Khan, has adherents even in Dardistan, and any command that may reach them from him [generally a demand for money] is obeyed implicitly. Indeed, throughout India and