Riyāż al-salāṭīn - The Riyazu-s-Salatin

This has reference to the Muhammadan belief that the Nūr or light of Muhammad was the first thing created by God, and that all else followed, though the Prophet in bodily form was ushered into existence after all other prophets.

This has reference to the tragic martyrdom of Ḥusain and other members of the Fatimite family, who were all innocent, and whose ancestor the Prophet was.

Every Muhammadan book begins with the praise of God. This praise is called ḥamd in Arabic, and is followed by Na‘t, or praise of the Arabian Prophet.

Ghulām Ḥusain Salīm Zaidpūrī is the author of the present historical work entitled the Riyaẓu-s-Salātīn, or History of Bengal. Ilaḥī Bakhsh in his history “Khurshid Jahān Numā” of which Mr. Beveridge has published lately an Analysis in the Journals of the Asiatic Society, has some notice of Ghulām Ḥusain. He states that Ghulām Ḥusain was of Zaidpūr in Oudh, migrated to Māldah in Bengal, and held the office of Dāk Munshī or Post Master there, under Mr. George Udny. Noticing the Charitable Dispensary at Māldah, Ilahī Bakhsh observes that here used to be the house of Ghulām Ḥusaīn, and that in the quarter known as Cak Qurbān Alī is the tomb of Ghulām Ḥusain who died in 1233 A.H. or 1817 A.C. The chronogram composed in honour of his memory by his pupil, Abdul Karīm, is which yields 1233. Mr. Udny appears to have been at the time Commercial Resident of the East India Company’s factory at Māldah.

Ḥatīm was a Prince of Yemen, in Arabia. His generous hospitality is a by-word in the East.

Naushīrwān was a King of Irān or old Persia. He flourished in the sixth century, and belonged to the Sassanian dynasty. His wazīr was the famous Buzurchemeher or Bouzour, author of the Zafarnāmah. Naushīrwan’s justice is proverbial in the world.

Dīnār, a gold coin weighing one misqal, i.e., 13/7 dirhams. For details see Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. I (Blochmann’s Trans., p. 36).

Our author calls Bengal “Jinnat-ul-bilād,” or ‘Paradise of Provinces.’ I am not sure if there is any historical basis for this expression, as there is for the expression “Jinnat-ābād” which latter epithet was bestowed by Emperor Humayun on Gaur in Bengal (see Tabaqat-i-Akbarī, Elliot’s History of India, Vol. V, p. 201, Ain-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 123, and Badaoni, Vol. I, p. 349). However that may be, Bengal well deserved to be styled “Jinnat-ul-bilād” or ‘Paradise of Provinces,’ owing to the fertility of its soil, the richness of its produce, and the vastness of its natural resources. During Musalmān rule, the Province of Bengal yielded the largest revenue to the Delhi Emperors, and in consequence its Viceroyalty was always coveted by Princes Royal of Delhi, from so remote a period as the times of Emperors Shamsuddin Altamsh and Ghiasuddin Balban— whose sons in succession ruled over Bengal, not to speak of later Mughal Princes Royal of Delhi. Under British rule also, Bengal Proper, including Assam, Behar and Orissa and Chutia Nagpur, forms the largest Administrative Division of India, contains one-third of the total population of British India, and yields a gross revenue of 17 or 18 millions sterling, or one-third of the actual revenues of the Indian Empire. It is worthy of note that the above expression is also used in Mughal Imperial (official) documents, vide J.A.S.B. for 1901, Vol. LXX, Part I, No. 1, pp. 21-22.

“Riyaẓu-s-Salātīn” is a chronogram yielding date 1202 A.H., corresponding to 1788 A.C., the year in which this historical work was completed. ‘Rauẓah’ in Persian means a ‘garden,’ its plural being ‘Riyāẓ’ meaning, ‘gardens.’ “Salātīn” means “Kings”; therefore, ‘Riyāẓu-s-Salātīn’ means “gardens of Kings.” It is a pity the author does not specify all the sources of his history, but there is internal evidence to indicate that, besides consulting standard historical works, such as Tabaqāt-Naṣiri by Minhāj-u-Sirāj, Tarīkh-i-Fīruz Shahī by Ziauddin Barnī and by Sirāj Afīf (which contain references to the history of Bengal only for the period between 1198 to 1338 A.C.) and Tabaqat-i-Akbarī by Nizamuddin Ahmad (which contains an account of Bengal for the period 1338 to 1538), the Badaonī and Akbarnāmah by Abul Faẓl (for the period under Akbar) and other similar standard historical works on India such as the Tuzuk, the Iqbālnamah, the Pādshāhnāmah, the Alamgīrnāmāh, and the Maasir-i-Alamgīrī. Salīm had recourse also to other less known historical treatises relating to Bengal which are not perhaps now extant, and perhaps lay only in MSS. Our author now and then says ‘I have seen in a little book,’ and he also cites a historical compilation by one Hajī Muhammad of Qandahar, of which no copy seems now to exist. Our author appears also to have taken considerable pains in deciphering old inscriptions on monuments, mosques, and shrines in Gaur and Panduah— old Musalmān capitals of Bengal. This feature considerably enhances the value of his history, and gives it a superiority over other similar works, and places our author in the forefront of Bengal antiquarians and researchers. Indeed, Ghulām Ḥusain is pre-eminently the Historian of Muhammadan Bengal, because other Muhammadan historians before or after him dealt only with certain periods of Bengal history, whilst our author’s narrative comprises the history of Bengal from the earliest mythological period to the dawn of British rule, with a more detailed account of Muhammadan Rulers of Bengal. Stewart’s History of Bengal is to a great extent based on the ‘Riyāẓ’ though Stewart very often has preferred the less accurate account of the Dakhīn historian, Firishta, who flourished in the seventeenth century. The great Oriental scholar and antiquarian, Professor Blochmann, in his ‘Contributions to the History and Geography of Bengal’ says: “The Riyāẓ is much prized as being the fullest account in Persian of the Muhammadan History of Bengal.” Professor Blochmann further observes “for the early portions, Ghulām Ḥusain Salīm has used books which are unknown at present; yet he gives valuable dates which are often confirmed by collateral evidence. Salīm has also made a fair use of the antiquities of the Gaur District.”

The Khutbah is a Musalmān prayer-book recited on Fridays, ‘Id days, and other special days and occasions. The recital of the Khutbah after one’s name and the minting of coins, was regarded by Musalmān sovereigns as emblems of sovereignty.

Nāzims—

The Nāzims were functionaries created by the Mughal Government or by Sher Shah (Badaonī, Vol. I, p. 365). To each Province or Ṣūbah, the Mughal Emperors appointed two Principal Heads of administration, one being the Nāzim and the other being the Dīwān. The Nāzim was the Governor or Viceroy of the Province, he was the Executive and Military Head of the Province, and administered Criminal Justice; whilst the Dīwān, though independent of the former and directly subordinate to the Delhi Emperor, held portfolio of the Finance, and was responsible for the revenue administration of the Province, and also occasionally administered Civil Justice. Thus there were two independent wheels in the machinery of Provincial administration. Under the Nāzims, there was a chain of subordinate officials, called Naib Nāzims, Serlashkars, Faujdars, Kotwāls and Thanadars on the executive side, and under Dīwāns on the judicial side, were Qazi-ul-Qazzāt (Chief Justice), Qazīs, Muftīs, Mīr Adls, Sadrs presided over by Sadr-i-Sadūr, and on the revenue side were Naib or local Dīwāns, Amils, Shīqdars, Karkuns, Qanungos, and Patwarīs. The Judiciary, both Civil and Criminal, were often, however, independent of both Nāzims and Dīwāns, and subordinate only to the Imperial Ṣadr-i-Ṣadūr or Ṣadr-i-Kul or Ṣadr-i-Jahān (or Minister of Justice) at Delhi, who was responsible for good conduct to the Mughal Emperor himself. (See Ain, Vol. II, p. p. 37-49, and do. Vol. I, p. 268.)

Caghtai Khān was a son of Cangīz Khān. Emperor Bābar, the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, was descended on the mother’s side from a nobler stock, that is, from Caghtai Khān; hence the Mughal Emperors of India commonly styled themselves as Caghtāi Emperors in preference to ‘Mughal’ Emperors, the term ‘Mughal’ not being so honourable, in accordance with an accepted usage and principle amongst Moslems to refer back their lineage to the nobler side, whether paternal or maternal.

The name of Ṣūbah originated from the time of Emperor Akbar, who designated the fiscal areas as follows from the time of the ten-years’ settlement:— A Ṣūbah was an aggregate of Sarkars, a Sarkār or Division was an aggregate of Dastūrs, a Dastūr (which Sir Henry Elliot in his Glossary explains as an abbreviation of Dastūru-l-Aml, corresponding to a district under a Sarkār) was an aggregate of Parganas or Mahals (used as equivalent expressions), and a Pargana or Mahal meant a fiscal division, the fiscal unit, coinciding with the dominions of a native chief under the Mughal dynasty. The words used before Akbar’s time to denote fiscal divisions or tracts of country larger than the Pargana, were Shaq, Khattah, ‘Arṣāh, Diyār, Vilayet, Iqta, Bilād and Mamlakat. Thus in the earlier Musalmān histories before the end of the fourteenth century, we come across Shaq-i-Sama, Khattah-i-Oudh, ‘Arṣah-i-Gorakpūr, Diyār-i or Vilayet-i-Lakhnautī, Vilayet-i-Mean Doab, Iqta’-i-Kara, Bilād Bang, Mamlakat Lakhnautī. See Elliot’s Glossary, and Ain, Vol. II, p. 115, and Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, pp. 148 and 262.

The Musalmān astronomers and geographers divided the world into seven parts, to each of which they gave the name of Iqlīm or climate.— See Āīn-i-Akbarī Jarrett’s Trans., Vol. III, p. 43.

Islāmābād or Chittagong. The district was first conquered by the Independent Musalmān Kings of Bengal. In 1350 A.C., about which year Ibn Batutah was in Chittagong, it belonged to King Fakhruddin of Sunargaon. It was re-conquered in 1665 by the Mughals under Umid Khān who changed the name of the place to Islāmābād during the rule of Nawab Shaista Khān, Viceroy of Bengal.— See Blochmann’s contributions to History and Geography of Bengal and the Alamgīr-Namah, p. 940, and the Ain, Vol. II, p. 125.

Teliagadhī on Teliagarhī is a pass lying between Rajmahal on the south, and the Ganges on the north; formerly of strategic importance, as commanding the approaches to Bengal Proper. The ruins of a large stone fort still exist, through which the E.I. Railway passes. See Hunt. Imp. Gazetteer, Vol. XIII, p. 236 and Ain, Vol. II, p. 116.

Karoh or Kos— Āīn 16 says:— The Kos was fixed at 100 tanabs, each consisting of 50 Ilahī gaz or 400 poles (bans), each pole of 12½ gaz. Sher Shāh fixed the Kos at 60 jaribs, each of 60 Sikandrī gaz. A farsakh is equal to three Kos.— See Ain-i-Akbari, Vol. II, p. 414.

Sarkār Madaran extended “in a semi-circle from Nagor in western Birbhūm over Raniganj along the Damūdar to above Bardwān, and from there over Khandghosh, Jahanabad, Chandrakona (western Hughlī district) to Mandalghat, at the mouth of the Rupnarayan river, and consisted of 16 mahals with a revenue of Rs. 235,085.”— See Blochmann’s Contributions to the History and Geography of Bengal and the Ain-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 141.

Kālāpahār is the famous general of the Afghān King of Bengal, Sulaimān Kararāni, and the renowned conqueror of the temple of Jagannath in Purī in south Orissa. Kālāpahār was killed by a gun-shot in one of the fights between Masūm and Qutlu of Orissa and ‘Azīz Kokah, which in 990 A.H., took place between Colgong and Gadhī. A detailed description of Kālāpahār’s conquest of Orissa is given in the Makhzan-ī-Afghanī.— See Ain, Vol. I, p. 370 and Vol. II, p. 128.

‘Isa Khān Afghān flourished in ‘Bhatī’ in the reign of Daūd, the last Afghān King of Bengal, and continued as ‘over-lord’ or ‘Marzbān-i-Bhatī,’ as Abul Faẓl in the Āīn styles him, with twelve great Zemindars or princelings (known in those days as Bārā Bhuiyās) under him, after annexation of Bengal by Emperor Akbar to the Mughal Empire. ‘Isa’s gadi was known as Masnad-i-Alī, the existing Dīwān families of Haibatnagar and Jangalbarī in Mymensingh district claim descent from ‘Isa. “Bhati” according to Abul Faẓl extended 400 Kos from east to west, and 300 Kos from north to the ocean to the south; it thus included the Sundarban and the tracts along the Megna. Grant defines “Bhati” as including the Sundarban and all the neighbouring lowlands (even Hijely) overflooded by the tides. The Musalmān historians never use the term Sundarban, but give the sea-board from Hijely to the Megna one name of ‘Bhati,’ which signifies lowlands overflooded by tides.— See Ain-i-Akbarī, Vol. I, p. 342, and J.A.S. No. 3, 1874, and No. 2, 1875 and Ain, Vol. II, p. 117.

In the Āīn, the Ṣūbah of Bengal is stated to have consisted of 24 Sarkārs including 787 mahals, and the revenue is stated to have been 59 Krors 84 lakhs 59 thousand and 19 dāms, equivalent to Rs. 14,961,482-15-7. Its standing army, according to the Āīn, consisted of 23,330 cavalry, 801,150 infantry, 1,170 elephants, 4,260 guns, 4,400 boats. Remembering that the army was not generally paid in coin, but by bestowal of fiefs or military jagirs, even at this distance of time, it is not difficult to imagine how Bengal was overrun by colonies of Musalmān feudal barons.— See Ain-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 129 and Vol. I, p. 370.

The text as well as the Akbarnamah and the Iqbalnamah-i-Jahangīrī state that Bengal was bounded on the south by the sea, on the north by hills (that is, those south of Nepaul, Sikkim, and Bhutan), on the east by hills (that is, those of Chittagong and Arakan), on the west by the Ṣūbah of Behar. During the reigns, however, of the Independent Musalmān Kings (such as Ilyas Shīah, and Alauddīn Husain Shāh in 1502 and his son and successor Naṣrat Shāh), the Musalmān Kingdom of Bengal was more extensive than its geographical limits, and included northern portions of Orissa or Jājnagar, Kuch Behar, Kamrūp or Western Assam with portions of Eastern Assam, and the whole of Upper Behar (a Governor to represent the Bengal Musalmān King being posted at Hājīpūr opposite to Patna), and the eastern portions of South Behar including Sarkars Monghyr and Behar.— (See J.A.S. No. 3, 1873, pp. 221-222). The whole of Orissa was conquered and annexed to the Bengal Musalmān Kingdom in the reign of Sulaimaṇ Kararānī, the last but one independent Musalmān Afghān King in Bengal.

When Bakhtiār Khīljī conquered Bengal, he ruled (ostensibly as Viceroy of the Musalmān Emperor of Delhi, Kutbuddin Aibak) over portions of Dīnājepūr, Māldah, Rangpūr, Nadiah, Bīrbhūm, and Bardwan comprising what was then called Diyār-i-Lakhnautī, and also he held Behar (Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 156). This state of things continued during the rule of his two immediate successors, when we find Husamuddīn Iwaz (a contemporary of Sultān Shamsuddīn Altamsh) extending the frontier eastward to the Brahmapūtra and southward to the sea-board, and reigning as an independent king under the title of Sultan Ghiasuddin (Tabaqat-i-Naṣirī, p. 163). The Tarīkh Fīruz Shahī, p. 87 mentions that Emperor Balban in his pursuit of Mughīsuddīn Tughral, had to go so far eastward as Sunargaon, which would appear to have been within the limits also of Tughral’s Bengal Kingdom. Again, in 1350 A.C. when Ibn-i-Batūtah was in Chittagong, we find this important seaport was in the hands of King Fakhruddīn of Sūnargaon. As Mr. Thomas in his learned discussions on old coins of Bengal Musalmān Kings has suggested, it would seem that so early as the twelfth century there was free commercial intercourse between the south-eastern sea-board of Bengal and the Arab seaports of Baghdād and Basorah; and it would seem it was this commercial Musalmān activity combined with superior martial and moral qualities that paved the way for Musalmān domination throughout Bengal.

Subsequently in the reign of Ghiasuddīn Tughlak Shāh, we find the Bengal Musalmān Kingdom has grown so extensive and unwieldy, that we find him separating Behar from Bengal, and placing it under an independent Governor, whilst Bengal itself for purposes of convenient administration was divided into three different sections, viz.: (1) Diyār-i-Sunargaon, comprising Eastern Bengal, (2) Diyār-i-Sātgaon, comprising Western Bengal, and (3) Diyār-i-Lakhnautī, comprising Northern and Central Bengal. A Governor was appointed to each of the above three administrative Sections or Divisions, the Governor of Lakhnautī being the Supreme Governor or Viceroy, whilst the two other Governors were placed generally in subordination to him (Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahī, p. 451). But this state of things did not last long; for in the reign of Muhammad Shāh Tughlak (Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahī, p. 480) Bengal again rose as an Independent Musalmān Kingdom, and as has been mentioned above, the whole of Upper Behar with eastern portions of Southern Behar was again annexed to the Bengal Kingdom, whilst Orissa also was subsequently added to it. This state of things continued until Akbar came to the throne, when Bengal, with Behar and Orissa, was annexed to the Mughal Empire of Delhi. See Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, Tarikh-i-Firu-Shahī, Akbarnamah, Ibn-i-Batutah’s Travels and Mr. Thomas’s “Initial Coinage of Bengal,” J.A.S.B., No. 1, 1867 and No. IV, 1873 pp. 221-222 and 343.

The same in Ain-i-Akbarī, Vol. 2, p. 117.

For identification of these places see J.A.S., 1872, p. 49.

For identification of these places see J.A.S., 1872, p. 49.

For identification of these places see J.A.S., 1872, p. 49.

For identification of these places see J.A.S., 1872, p. 49.

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣīrī, p. 156, “Mech” and “Koch.” See J.A.S. for 1872, p. 49. Alamgīrnamah, p. 683. Akbarnamah, p. 207. Tuzuk p. 147, and Padshahnamah, p. 64, Vol. II.

Kamrūp (in Tabaqat-i-Naṣīrī, p. 163, Kamrūd) included the Western portion of Assam together with the Bengal Districts of Rangpūr, Rangmati (now in Goalpara District) and Sylhet. It was first conquered by Musalmāns in the reign of Hussamuddin Iwaz alias Sultan Ghiasuddin, an immediate successor of Bakhṭīyar Khīljī, in the early part of the thirteenth century. (Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 163). At the close of the fifteenth century, its Rājah Nelambhar was overthrown by Husain Shāh, King of Bengal. In ancient days, Kamrūp was noted for its sorcery and the beauty of its women. Rangpūr is stated to have been founded by Bakhtiyar Khiljī, during his expedition into Tibet.— See also J.A.S. for 1872, p. 49; Alamgirnamah, p.p. 678 and 730, makes it equivalent for Hajo (Koch Hajo) Gauhati and dependencies.

“Tangīstan” is the general name for that assemblage of mountains which constitute the territory of Bhutan, “tangs” meaning ‘defiles.’ Abul Faẓl also mentions these ‘Tanghan’ horses. He states: “In the lower parts of Bengal near to Kuch, a species of horse is produced called Tanghan.” The tangan pony is usually 13 hands high and short bodied, deep in the chest, and very active.

Tribes of Marī, Majmī, Daphla, and Vilandah and Nag.— Vilandah or Landah tribe has been identified with the Akas tribe.

All these tribes belong to the Non-Aryan Tibet-Burman stock, which have clung to the skirts of the Himalayas, they crossed into India by the north-eastern passes, and in pre-historic times they had dwelt in Central Asia, side by side with the ancestors of the Mongolians and the Chinese. The principal types of the Tibeto-Burman stock are the following:— (1) Cacharis, (2) Garos, (3) Tipuras or Mrungs, (4) Bhutiyas, (5) Gurungs, (6) Marmis, (7) Newars, (8) Lepchas, (9) Mirīs, (10) Akas, (11) Mīshmis, (12) Nagas, (13) Daphlas.— See J.A.S. for 1872, p. 76, Col. Dalton’s “Ethnology of Bengal” and also description of Assam and the Assamese in Alamgirnamah, p. 722.

This seems to be a copyist’s mistake for “Goneser hills” (see J.A.S. 1872, p. 761). The Alamgirnamah has Srinagar! p. 722.

“Naktīranī” or “Naktīranī” has been identified with Deshranī, a pergana of Kamrup.— See J.A.S. for 1872, p. 76.

“The account of the burial of Ahom magnates is confirmed by recent disclosures of desecrated graves.”— See J.A.S. for 1872, p. 82, footnote.

China was long known to Asiatics under the name of Khutai or Khata or Khata and Machīn.

Khan Baligh is the name given to Pekin; it means the Court of the Great Khan. See D’Herbelot and Yule’s Marcopolo.

Arracan or the Magh country included Chittagong till a late period; it formed a great Buddhist Kingdom, whilst adjoining it on the north was the Hindu Kingdom of Tipperah.— See Alamgirnamah, p. 940, wherein Arracan is called “Rakhang,” and its inhabitants are called “Maghs.”

Pegu is now a division of British Burmah comprising the districts of Rangūn, Bassein, &c.

The Maghs and Arracanese were one race, their conntry being Arracan or Arkhang. They made constant raids in fleets of armed boats up the rivers of South-Eastern Bengal. During the Viceroyalty of the Mughul Viceroy of Bengal at Dacca, Nawab Shaista Khān, these raids were considerably checked, and several of the Magh fleets were captured at the mouth of the Megna River, and the fort of Chittagong was also re-stormed. The Maghs were also expelled from the island of Sandip. A large number of Magh settlers are to be found still in Chittagong, Bakarganj, Noakhali and Tipperah. Though originally Buddhists, they have now intermixed with the people, and have become Hinduised or semi-Hinduised.— See Alamgirnamah, p. 940.

The first Muhammadan incursions into Jajnagar or Northern Orissa appear to have taken place about 1204 A.C. under Mahammad Shiran, an officer of Bakhtiyar Khiljī, and subsequently under Hussamudin Iwaz, Tughan Khān, and Tughral (see Tabaqat-i-Naṣirī, pp. 157, 163, 244, 262). Under Husain Shāh, Ismail Ghazi invaded also Jajnagar or Orissa, sacked the capital Cuttack and successfully stormed the holy city, Puri (see J.A.S. 1874, p. 215 and do. 1872, p. 335). The complete defeat of the Hindus took place in 1567-68 A.C., when Sulaiman Kararani, King of Bengal, with a large army under his famous General Kālāpahār advanced into Orissa and defeated the last independent Rajah Makand Deo under the walls of Jājpūr and Katak. When subsequently in Akbar’s time the Afghan Kingdom of Bengal was supplanted by the Mughuls, the Afghans in large numbers migrated into Orissa. In 1575 A.C., a great battle took place between Mughuls and Afghans (at Bajhaura, Badaoni p. 193) at Mughalmari, near Jaleswar in Balasore, in which Daud, the last Afghan king, was defeated, and Orissa practically shortly after (1592 A.C.) became a Mughul Province, administered by the Mughul Viceroy of Bengal. In the Āīn, Abul Faẓl mentions that the Hindu rulers of Orissa had the title of Gajpati, or Lord of the Elephant. In the time of Nawab Ali Vardi Khān, Mughul Viceroy of Bengal, Orissa became the hunting-ground of Mahratta free-booters. The struggles between Ali Vardi and the Mahrattas are graphically described in the Sēīrul Mūtakhērin. See Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, Tarikh-i-Fīruz Shāhī, Akbarnamah and Makhzan-i-Afghani. Jajnagar is mentioned by Badaoni I, p. 233, as having been subdued by Ulugh Khān in 1323 A.C. or 723 A.H., in Ghiasuddīn Tughlak’s reign, and is mentioned as having been subdued in 1360 A.C., by Firuz Shah Tughlak, Badaoni I, 248 and Tarikh Fīruz Shahī by Shams Seraj, p. 115. Seraj mentions that the idol of Jagannath was carried off to Delhi by Firuz Shah (p. 119).

In the Sēīrul-Mūtakhērin it is called Bārāhbaṭī. The fort of Bārāhbaṭī is on the south bank of the Mahanadi river, opposite to the city of Cuttack; it is now in ruins. The following description of it is translated and summarised by me from the Seir:— “The fort Bārāhbaṭī with the city of Cuttack is situate on the strip of land lying between the rivers Mahanada and Kathajuri… The fort is on the bank of the Mahanada, and the circumference of its enclosing rampart is about three Kroh. The rampart is built of stone, brick, lime and cement, and a wide moat runs round the rampart. The city of Cuttack is situate on the banks of the Kathajuri river, and the distance between the fort and the city is about two Kroh.…”

This was Rajah Mukund Deva, Haricandara, who reigned from 1560 to 1568. Mukund Deva was a Telugu by birth. In 1564-65 A.C. a treaty was concluded between Emperor Akbar and the Rajah, preceded by mutual despatch of ambassadors on both sides (see Badaonī p. 76, wherein it is stated that Hasan Khan Khazanchī and Mahāputēr were sent by Akbar as ambassadors to the Rajah of Orissa). As mutual jealousies prevailed between Mughuls and Afghans, this political measure was adopted by Akbar, in order to serve as a counterpoise to the ambition of the Musalman Afghan King of Bengal, Sulaiman Karrarām, who had planned to extend his Bengal Kingdom by annexing Orissa and also to prevent the latter from helping Akbar’s rebellious Governor of Jaunpur, named Khan Zaman. Finding shortly after Akbar engaged in wars in the west, Sulaiman Kararani, the King of Bengal, attacked the Orissa Rajah, who had come close to the Ganges; the Rajah fled to Fort Kotsama. The Bengal King detached a force under Kālāpahār, his general, to Orissa across Mayurbhanja and thence southward by the Kaoabasa river. Kālāpahār ravaged Orissa, defeated the Rajah’s deputy, and shortly after the Rajah himself was killed, and Muhammadans finally conquered Orissa in 1568 A.C. After conquering Orissa, Sulaiman Karrarani (who reigned from A.C. 1563 to A.C. 1572) left his Vazīr, Khan Jahan Lodi, as Viceroy of Orissa with headquarters at Cuttack, and Qūtlū as Governor at Purī. (Badaonī II, 174).

This is not strictly correct. See note 7, p, 3 ante.

Professor Blochmann has surmised that Kālāpahār was originally a Hindu who embraced Islam, from the circumstance that his proper name was Raju. Mr. Beveridge in his Analysis of Khurshid Jahan Numa has followed in Professor Blochmann’s wake. I see no warrant for this surmise. The Makhzan-i-Afghani and the Akbarnamah, contemporary records, would not have failed to notice this fact, if it were so; for it would have been a matter of additional exultation to the Musalman historians. The text describes him as one of the “Omrah of Babar”; and Babar never dreamt of the policy of his grandson, Akbar, to employ Hindus in high military capacities or to make them his “Omra.” Furthermore, the name Rajū is current amongst Musalmans. (See Blochmann’s Āīn, Vol. I, which mentions one Syed Rajū of Barha and Badaonī, p. 323, Vol. 2, and Āīn, Vol. 2, p. 371): Badinī, too, in the Muntakhibu-l-Tawarikh (p. 42, Vol. 1), mentions Kalapahar as a brother of Sikandar Shāh (alias Ahmad Khān Sūr of Sher Shāh’s family) who occupied Bihar as tuyul under Akbar. (The Makhzan-i-Afghanī gives a full description of Kalapahar’s conquest. He was killed in 1582 A.C. in a fight with Aziz Kokah between Colgeng and Rajmahal.

Shaik Kabīr flourished about the beginning of the 15th century during the rule of Independent Musalman Kings in Bengal. He was the leader of a great theistic movement, the object in view being to harmonise Musalman and Hindu religions, and to teach votaries of both the great religions of India that they were after all children and worshippers of one God, that the Allah of Musalmans is the Parmeshur of the Hindus, that they ought to be tolerant of each others creeds, and to regard each others as fellow-brethren The labours of Kabīr may be placed between 1380 and 1420 A.C., and reflect not only credit on him, but illustrate what ethical and spiritual progress took place amongst the people of India under the impact of Islām. It may be added that on Kabīr’s death, both Hindus and Musalmans claimed his body; so catholic and liberal was he in his views. This great theistic movement set on foot by Kabīr, received expansion in the following century by the labours of Chaitanya, the Nuddea leader of Vishnuism, in Bengal who flourished in the reign of Sultan Alau-d-dīn Husain Shāh, King of Bengal.

Abul Faẓl similarly in the Āīn-i-Akbarī explains the origin of the term Bangalah. (See Jar. Tr., p. 115, Vol. 11). In the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, the expression “Bang” is invariably used. In the Tarīkh-i-Firuz Shāhī, the expression “Bangalah” or “Bengal” is used.

The Persian Calendar consists of twelve solar months, named (1) Farwardīn (March), (2) Ardibihasht (April), (3) Khurdad (May), (4) Tīr (June) (5) Murdad (July), (6) Shahriwar (August), (7) Mihr (September), (8) Abān (October), (9) Adār (November), (10) Dī (December), (11) Bahman (January), (12) Sepandarmaz (February). See Richardson’s Pars. Dict. and also Ameer Ali’s History of Sarcens, p. 316.

Graphic descriptions of famines in India in past times will be found in the Tarīkh-i-Firuz Shahī, Badaonī, and the Maasir-i-Alamgiri.

Abūl Faẓl in the Āīn says:— “The harvests are always abundant, measurement is not insisted upon, and the revenue demands are determined by estimate of the crop. His Majesty Emperor Akbar in his goodness has confirmed this practice.” (See Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. 2, pp. 121-122).

“Muhrir” is a clerk.

‘Patwari’ = Village Accountant.— This functionary flourishes even now.

“Karkun” was a supervisor over village patwaris,— he was an Imperial officer in charge of the accounts of a parganah. The “Karkuns” were in turn supervised by ‘Amils’ in charge of an aggregate of parganahs or a district. Here we get a glimpse of the old fiscal system in regard to its account-branch. In the collection-branch of the Musalman fiscal system, Shiqdars (corrupted into Hindu family names Sikdars) presided over Mahals, Majmuahdars (corrupted into Hindu family names of Mozumdars) presided over a group or circle of Mahals or a Turf, and over an aggregate of Mahals or Turfs, corresponding to a modern District, an Amil presided, and over an aggregate of Districts or a Division, the Districts, there was a local Diwan. The last two functionaries were generally Musalmans, whilst the first two subordinate functionaries were almost invariably Hindus.

“Singhasan” of our author corresponds to Abūl Faẓl’s “Sukhasan” in tthe Āīn. (See Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. 2, p. 126).

Qazīhata mentioned by Abul Faẓl in the Āīn and quoted by our author appears to be Hajrahatti, on the left bank of the Podda, now also a ferry place, near the entrance of the Bural river, below Rampūr Boalia.

Dastan was the title of Rustam, the Persian Hercules— otherwise called Rustam Zal.

“Jharkand” was the name by which, what we now call, “Chutia Nagpur” was known in Muhammadan times; whilst “Bharkundah” denoted “Sonthal Parganas including Birbbūm.”

I think “Gondwārah” in the text here is a copyist’s mistake for “Gondwanah” which has been identified with the “Central Provinces,” of which the capital is Garha-Katanga (Jabalpūr).

It is worthy of note that there is a town called Sūraj-garh (or fort of Sūraj) in Monghyr district, on the southern banks of the Ganges, and close to Maulanagar, where there is also an old Muhammadan Khanqah founded by Mahabat Jang.

In Firishta, ‘Shangal.’ In the list of Hindu kings given in the Āīn-i-Akbarī, I do not find this name.

The authentic history of the city begins with its conquest in 1198 A.C. (594 A.H.) by the Muhammadans, who made it (their first capital in Bengal. (See Tabaqat-i-Naṣirī, p. 151, Pers. Text). This was the period when were erected numerous mosques and other Muhammadan buildings. (See Hunt. Imp. Gazetteer, Vol. III, p. 333, also Ravenshaw’s and Creighton’s “Ruins of Gaur”). When the Musulman kings of Bengal established their independence, they transferred the seat of government to Sunargaon and Panduah. Panduah was soon after deserted, and the royal residence re-transferred to Gaur, whilst Sunargaon continued as capital of East Bengal. Minhajus Siraj visited the city in 641 H. or 1245 A.C., and gives an account of it in his Tabaqāt-i-Nasirī. (p. 162, Pers. Text) Abūl Faẓl in the Āīn notices it (see p. 123, Vol. 2, Āīn, Jar. Tr.), and states that the city was known in his time both as Lakhnautī and Gaur, and that the latter epithet was changed to “Jinnatabad” by Emperor Humāyun. Badaini (p. 58, Vol. 1, Pers. Text) states that Bakhtiyar Ghorī founded a city and named it after himself ‘Gour.’ The capital was shifted in Sulaiman Kararanī’s time further westward to Tandāh. During the conquest of Bengal by the Mughuls under the Emperor Akbar, Gaur again became the headquarters of the Mughul Government, and the Mughul Imperialists under Munaim Khan, Khan-i-Khanan, the first Mughul Viceroy of Bengal, occupied it. A pestilence, however, broke out, in course of which Munaim died— and also thousands of troops and people daily (see pp. 318 and 376, Āīn, Vol. 1, Bloch’s Tr. and Badaonī, Vol. 2, p. 217), and the Mughul metropolis of Bengal was removed to Tandāh, and thence shortly after to Rajmahal or Akbarnagar, which remained the capital of Bengal, until it was removed to Dacca or Jahangīrnagar, and lastly to Murshidabad. Dr. Buchanan-Hamilton places the inhabited area of Gaur at 20 square miles, containing over 600,000 souls. The author of Khurshed Jahannuma notes the following principal buildings as still existing:—

1. The Qadam-Rasul, a square, one-domed building in the enclosure of the Fort, erected by Sultan Naṣrat Shāh, son of Sultan Allaudīn Husain Shāh in 937 A.H. (1530 A.C.).

2. The Minar, north-east of the Qadam-Rasul, built by Sultān Fīruz Shāh The height of the Minar is about 50 cubits, and its circumference about 5. cubits. Fīruz reigned in 893 A.H. (1487 A.C.).

When I visited Gaur from Maldah in 1887 I found also portions of the rampart, the gateway, and the Qadam-Rasul building yet extant.

The embanked road or bridge is described in Tabaqat-i-Nasirī (p. 162). It connected Lakhnauti with Lakhnur in Rar on the western side, and Lakhnauti with Deocote in Barind on the eastern side, and was constructed by Hussamuddin Iwuz alias Sultan Ghiasuddin.

Murshidābād was the latest Muhammadan Capital of Bengal, its immediate predecessor for over 100 years being Dacca or Jahāngīrnagar, in Eastern Bengal. In 1704 A.C., Murshid Qulī Khān also known as Jāfar Khān (then the Mughul Dīwan) falling out with Prince Azīm-us-shān, the Mughul Viceroy or Nawab at Dacca, transferred the seat of government from Dacca to the little town of Makhsūsābād, and named the place after himself “Murshidābād.” After the battle of Plassey in 1757 A.C., Clive on entering Murshidābād describes it thus: “This city is as extensive, populous, and rich as the city of London … The inhabitants, if inclined to destroy the Europeans, might have done so with sticks and stones.” Even after the battle of Plassey, Murshidābād remained for some years the seat of administration. The result of the battle of Plassey was at the time appreciated both by Clive and the people, for the reason that it ended the misrule of Sirajudaula, who had rendered himself obnoxious both to the people and the English by his youthful pranks and vagaries; it was not regarded at the time as interfering with Musulman sovereignty: it merely affected the substitution of a new Nawab (Mīr Jāfar) for Sirajudaula. In 1765, the East India Company received the grant of Dīwanī or financial administration of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa from the Mughul Emperor of Delhi, Shāh Alām, and in the following year Lord Clive, as the Emperor’s Dīwan, presided in person at the Puniya, or annual collection and settlement of revenues. On this occasion, the young Nawāb Nazim (as administrative and military representative of the Mughul Emperor of Delhi) sat on the masnad, with the Dīwan (Lord Clive) on his right hand. The work of administration still remained in the hands of Muhammadan officials. In 1772, Warren Hastings removed the Supreme, Civil, and Criminal Courts from Murshidābād to Calcutta, but after three years the Criminal court (Nizāmat Adalat) was re-transferred to Murshidābād, and it was only in 1790, under Lord Cornwallis, that the entire revenue, civil, and criminal staff were posted in Calcutta. The Murshidābād Mint, the recognized emblem of metropolitan supremacy, was abolished in 1799. Thenceforth, Murshidābād has been left only as the residence of the Nawāb, a descendant of Mir Jāfar, and now it has ceased to be of importance.

It may be of interest to note here that the following mint towns existed in Bengal during the earlier Muhammadan kings: (1) Lakhnautī, (2) Firuzābād (Pandūah), (3) Sātgāon, (4) Shahr-i-Nau (not identified), (5) Ghiyaspūr, (6) Sunargāon, (7) Muazzamābād (i.e., Sylhet or Mymensingh), (8) Fathābād (Farīdpūr town), (9) Khalīfatābād (Bagerhat town in Jessore), and (10) Husainabad (probably close to Gaur) (See Thomas’ “Initial Coinage” and Blochmann’s Contributions).

Urfī was a famous Persian poet of Shirāz, attached to the Court of Emperor Jahangīr. He possessed poetical genius of a high order, and was much appreciated by the Emperor. I published an English translation of some of his “Odes” or “Qasaid,” many years ago.

The palace of Mutījhīl was for several years, after the installation of Nawab Mīr Jāfar, the residence of the British Political Resident attached to the Court of the Nawāb Nāzims of Bengal.

Sātgaon, the ancient royal port or “Ganges Regia” of Bengal. It lay at the point of junction of the Hūghlī and the holy Saraswātī. The river Saraswātī silted up during the first-half of the sixteenth century, and the Portuguese merchants found that the harbour of Sātgāon was no longer practicable, and accordingly fixed their port at Gholaghāt in 1537, a few miles lower down on the same east bank of the river. Gholaghāt soon became the chief emporium, and took the name of the river, that is, Hūghlī town or part. Sātgāon is now become a petty village, though when I visited it from Hūghlī in 1888, I found traces of a ruined mosque. The first mention of Sātgāon that I find in Muhammadan history is in the reign of Sultan Ghiasuddin Tughluk Shāh who invaded Bengal to chastise Bahadur Shāh, King of Sunargaon. (See pp 45-46 Tarikh-i-Firuzshāhi).

Ajam. The Arabs divided the races of the world into the Arabīs and the Ajamīs or non-Arabs. Persia Proper was called Irak-i-Ajam.

In 1596 A.C., it is mentioned in the Āīn-i-Akbarī as a rent-paying village named “Kalīkatta” under Sarkār Sātgāon. (See Āīn, p. 141, Vol. 2, Jar. Tr.) In 1686, in consequence of a rupture with the Musulmān authorities at Hūghlī port, the English merchants, led by their Chief, Job Charnock, were obliged to quit their factory there and to retreat to Sūtanātī (now a northern quarter of Calcutta). Their new settlement soon extended itself southwards first over the village of “Kalīkatta” (between the present Customs-House and the Mint) and subsequently over the village of Gobīndpūr (which existed to the south of the present site of Fort William). In 1689, it became the head-quarters of the servants of the East India Company employed in Bengal factories. In 1696, the original Fort William was built, being replaced by a new one in 1742, the above three villages being purchased in 1700 from Prince Azam, son of Emperor Aurangzeb. In 1756, the town was sacked and Fort William captured by Nawāb Sirāju-d-daulah, who changed its name to Alīnagar. In Jannary 1757 it was re-taken by the English under Admirals Watson and Clive. A new fort, the present Fort William, was commenced by Clive, but it was finished in 1773, when the maidan was also opened out. In this connection, it may be added, that the author of the “Seirul Mutakherin,” though hostile to Siraju-d-daulah, and though a contemporary historian, does not say a word about the “Black Hole” affair!

Until 1707, when Calcutta was first declared a Presidency, it had been dependent on the older English settlement at Madras. From 1707 to 1773 it was on an equal footing with presidencies at Madras and Bombay. In 1773, an Act of Parliament was passed, under which it was declared that the Presidency of Calcutta should exercise a sort of general control over other possessions of the English East India Company, that the Chief of the Presidency of Calcutta should be called Governor-General. In 1772, Warren Hastings had given into the hands of the servants of the East India Company the general administration of Bengal which had hitherto been in the hands of Muhammadan Niẓamat officials, and had removed the Treasury from Murshidabad to Calcutta. The latter town thus became both the capital of Bengal and the seat of Supreme Government. In 1834, the Governor-General of Bengal was created Governor-General of India, and was allowed to appoint a Deputy-Governor of Bengal to manage the affairs of Bengal in his absence. In 1854, a separate Lieutenant-Governor was appointed for Bengal, Behar, and Orissa.

(See Wilson’s Early Annals of the “English in Bengal,” Buckland’s “Bengal under Lieutenant-Governors.”)

Chandanagore, founded as a small French settlement in 1673, rose to mercantile importance under Dupleix in the middle of the eighteenth century.

In the seventeenth century, the Dutch merchants who had hitherto resided at Sātgāon and Hūghlī ports, founded their factory and port at Chinsurāh, a little below Hūghlī town.

The Danes in the seventeenth century founded their factory and port at Serampūr, about eight miles south of Chandanagore.

In the thirteenth century, Purnīah fell into the hands of the Muhammadans. Sarkar of Purniah is described in the Āīn-i-Akbarī, as containing nine mahals, with revenue 6,408,775 dams (See Jarrett’s Trans. of Āīn, Vol. 2, p. 134). Under its administrator, Nawab Saif Khan, a contemporary of Nawab Jāfar Khān, the Viceroy of Bengal, it attained the height of its prosperity. Its manufacture in bider works, once so famons, was found by me to have nearly died out when I was at Purnīah in 1898.

The tract of country between the northern limits of Purnīah district and the foot of Nepal Proper is locally known as the Mūrang.

Ruins of the fort still stand. It is now in the zemindary of Mr. Forbes of Purnīah, a few miles to the north of Purnīah railway station.

The Maasīr-ul-Umara (Vol. 1, Fasc. III, pp. 677-687) gives a detailed biographical sketch of Amīr Khān. It mentions Saif Khān, Faujdar of Purniah, as one of the sons of Amīr Khān. The Maasir calls Amīr Khān, “Amīr Khān Mīr-ī-Mīran.” Amīr Khān’s mother, Ḥamīda Banū Begam. was a grand-daughter of Eminu-d-daulah Açaf Khān.

Biruagar is now a circle under the Sub-Manager of the Durbhanga Raj at Purnīah.

At present each of these forms a police circle.

Several Durjan Singhs are mentioned in the Alamgīrnamah. One Bir Singh, Zemindar of Srīnagar, is also mentioned in it.

It did not appear to me so when I was at Purnīah in 1898. The old town or city appeared to me to have got into complete ruin, and very little trace of its former opulence and prosperity existed.

No traces of these could be found by me, when I was at Purnīah in 1898..

No traces of these could be found by me, when I was at Purnīah in 1898..

A fair is still held annually at Caragola, and is largely attended by Nepaulese, Bhutias and other hill-tribes, though not to the same extent as before.

Three routes to Kuch Behar and Assam are described in the Alamgirnamah (p. 683).

Dacca or Jahāngīrnagar was the Musalmān Viceregal Capital of Bengal during Mughul rule in India for a century, before it was shifted to Murshidabad by Murshid Qulī Khān in 1704 A.C. In 1610 A.C., Islām Khān, the Mughul Viceroy of Bengal, shifted the Viceregal Capital from Rajmahal, or Akbarnagar, to Dacca. This transfer of capital appears to have been decided upon, because the Musalmān dominions in Bengal had considerably extended eastward, and Rajmahal ceased to occupy a central position, and also because Magh and Arracanese incursions from Arrakan had become frequent. To effectually guard against the latter, a powerful fleet was constructed and maintained at Dacca and on the rivers Padda and Megna; and colonies of Musalmān feudal barons (most of whom have now died out or sunk into ploughmen) were planted throughout Eastern Bengal, especially at places of strategic importance, in order to hold in check all disloyal Afghān elements, and to prevent their intriguing with the Magh raiders. Except for about sixteen years, when Prince Shah Shuja re-transferred the Viceregal Capital to Rajmahal, Dacca remained the Viceregal Capital of Bengal throughout the seventeenth centary under three illustrious Mughul Emperors, viz., Jahāngīr, Shāh Jahān, and Aurangzeb. The most notable amongst the Mughul Viceroys of Dacca were Islam Khān, Mīr Jumla, the General of Aurangzeb, and Shasata Khān (nephew of Empress Nūr Jahan). The latter two Nawābs are still remembered for their encouragement of architecture, and for their construction of great public works conducive to the material improvement of the people. Whilst the great achievement of the first was the brenking of the last neck of Afghan opposition. The suburb of Dacca, it is related, extended northwards for a distance of 15 miles, now covered with dense jungles. The muslin manufacture of Dacca, once so famous, has now nearly died out. The old fort. erected in the reign of Emperor Jahāngīr, has disappeared. The only old public buildings now remaining are the Katra, built by Shāh Shujā in 1645, and the palace of Lal Bāgh, both of these also being in ruins. (See Taylor’s Topography of Dacca and Dr. Wise’s History of Dacca). Dacca, or Dhakka, occurs in the Akbarnāmāh as an Imperial Thana in 1584 the mahal to which it belonged is named “Dhakka Bazu;” it pertained in those early days to Sarkar Bazūha. (See Āīn-i-Akbarī Jarrett’s Trans., Vol. 2, Fasc. II, p. 138). Dacca, though it has lost its former Viceregal magnificence and opulence, has not yet sunk into an ordinary Bengal town, by reason of its being the residence of the present liberal and public-spirited ‘Nawābs of Dacca.’

Sunargaon City, close to Dacca to the south-east, was long an ancient Musalmān Capital of Bengal. To this place in 1281 A.C. (see p. 87 Tarikh-i-Fīruz Shahī by Barnī) Emperor Balban from Delhi came, and pursued Tughral, who had proclaimed himself Sultān Mughisuddin in 1279 A.C.; and about 610 A.H. (1214 A.C.) it was together with Bang (East Bengal) subdued (Tabaqat-i-Nasirī, Pers: text, p. 163) by Sultān Ghiasuddīn, one of the immediate successors of Bakhtīar Khīljī. Sunargaon is a place of melancholy historical interest, for it was here that the line of Balbani kings of Bengal (1282 to 1331 A.C.) ended, and it was also here that the last Balbani sovereign of Bengal, Bahadur Shāh, in 1331 A.C., under the order of Emperor Muhammad Shāh Tughlak, was captured, put to death, and his skin stuffed and paraded throughout the Emperor’s dominions. Subsequently, in 1338 A.C., the first Independent Mussalmān king of Bengal, named Fakhruddīn Abūl Muzaffar Mubarak Shāh, proclaimed his independence at Sunargaon, where he resided and minted coins Thomas’ “Initial Coinage” and Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi, p. 480). Mubarak Shāh’s son, Ghazī Shāh (third Independent king), also resided at Sunargaon, and minted coins there. In 1352 A.C., Hajī Ilyas or Sultān Shamsuddīn Abul Muzaffar Ilyas Shāh (fourth Independent king) established himself at Sunargaon (Thomas’ “Initial Coinage”) and there founded a new dynasty of Independent Bengal kings, who (with an interruption only of about forty years) continued to rule over Bengal for over a century (1352 to 1495 A.C.), and divided their residence between Gaur and Sunargaon. It was to Sunargaon that the illustrious poet of Shīraz, Hāfiz, sent his famous ghazl to Sultān Ghiasuddīn (son of Sikandar Shāh and grandson of Ilyas Shāh), when the latter invited the poet to his Royal Court at Sunargaon. Sunargaon has now become an insignificant village, without a single trace of its former regal splendour. (See also Dr. Wise’s note on Sunargaon, J.A.S., 1874, p. 82).

Chittagong was found to be in the hands of King Fakhruddīn of Sunargaon about 1350 A.C., when Ibn-i-Batutah visited it. It was re-subdued by King Nasrat Shāh, son of Husain Shāh, in the beginning of the sixteenth century. In Todar Mal’s rent-roll, it is assessed at Rs. 285,607, and the Sarkar is shown as including seven mahals. During the struggle for supremacy in Bengal between Afghans and Mughuls in the seventeenth century, it temporarily slipped out of Moslem hands, and had to be re-conquered in 1664 A.C. by Nawāb Shaista Khān, Emperor Aurangzeb’s Viceroy at Dacca, who named it Islāmābād (See the charming description of the re-conquest of Chittagong, in the Alamgirnamah, pp. 940-956.) Chittagong was, from very early times, an important place of trade, and the early Portuguese traders called it “Porto Grando.”

Sirkar Bogla or Bakla in Abul Faẓl’s Āīn is stated to have contained four mahals, and its revenue was Rs. 178,756. It comprised portions of the Backergunj and Sundarban districts and the southernmost portions of the Dacca district. The author of the Seiral Mutakherin calls it Sarkār Hugla.

Sarkar Ghoraghāt comprised portions of Dinajpur, Rangpūr, and Bogra districts. Being the northern frontier district skirting Koch-Behar, numerous colonies of Afghān and Mughal chiefs were planted there under the fendal system, with large jāgir lands under each. Many of the mahals bear purely Muhammadan names, such as Bazū Zafar Shāhī, Bazū Faulad Shāhi, Nasratābād, Bayizidpūr, Taaluk Husain, Taaluk Ahmad Khān, Kabnl, Masjd Husain Shahi. The Sarkar prodnced much raw silk. Eighty-four mahals; revenue, Rs. 202,077. The old Musalmān military outpost of Deocote near Gangarampur was in this Sarkar. It was established in the time of Bakhtīar Khīljī (see Blochmann’s Contr., J.A.S., 1873, p. 215, Tabaqat-i-Naṣirī, p. 156, Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 135 and Vol. I, p. 370). After the battle of Patna, 982 A.H., when Daud retired to Orissa, (Badaoni, p. 184, Vol. II), his generals Kalapahar and Baba Mankli proceeded to Ghoraghat, (Badaoni, p. 192). Akbar’s general, Majnun Khan, died at Ghoraghat.

Sarkār Mahmūdābād, named after one of the Sultān Mahmūd Shāhs of Bengal, comprised north-eastern Nadiya, north-eastern Jessore, and western Farīdpūr. Eighty-eight mahals; revenue Rs. 290,256. Its principal mahals were Santor, Naldī, Mahmūdshāhī, and Nasratshāhī. When Akbar’s army in 1574 under Munim Khan-i-Khanan invaded Bengal, Murad Khān, another Imperialist-General, invaded South-Eastern Bengal. He conquered, says the Akbarnamah, Sarkars Bakla and Fathabad (Farīdpūr) and settled and died there. It is remarkable that close to Farīdpūr there is a village (now a railway station) called Khan-Khanānpūr, which probably was the residence of Murad Khān, and which again is close to a place called Rājbarī (probably the seat of the old Rajahs). His sons were treacherously murdered at a feast to which they were invited by Mukund, the Rajah of Bhusna and Fatahabad. (See Āīn-i-Akbarī, p. 374, Bloch. Trans.) During the reigns of Jahangīr and Shāh Jahān, Satrujīt, son of Mukund, gave trouble, and at length in Shāh Jahāu’s reign was captured and executed at Dhaka (1636 A.C.) Nawāb Jāfar Khān about 1772 broke up this Sarkar, and annexed part of it to Rajshahi and part to the new Chaklah of Bhusna. Bhusna lies near Bonmaldih and Dakhinbarī, ancient Moslem colonies, and it is curious that west of it, on the Nabaganga, we find Satrujītpur close to an ancient Moslem colony, at Alūkdih; whilst opposite to Farīdpūr we find Mukund-chor, which is again close to “Khan-Khanānpūr” station, referred to above. Satrujīt’s descendant or successor, the notorious Raja Sitaram Rai, had his head-quarters at Mahmūdpur town, at the confluence of the Barasia and Madhumati rivers, in Jessore. Quite close to Mahmūdpūr, is an old Musalman colony at Shirgaon. (See Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 132, and Blochmann’s Contr., J.A.S., 1873, p. 217).

Sarkār Barbakābād, so named after Barbak Shāh, King of Bengal. It extended from Sarkar Lakhnautī, or Gaur, along the Padda to Bagūra, and comprised portions of Maldah, Dinajpūr, Rajshāhī, and Bogra Its clothes were well known, especially the stuffs called khacah. Thirty-eight mahals; revenue Rs 436,288. (See Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 137, and Blochmaun’s Contr., J.A.S., 1873, p. 215.)

Sarkār Bazūha extended from the limits of Sarkar Barbakābād, and included portions of Rājshāhī, Bogra, Pabna, and Maimansingh, and reached in the south a little beyond the town of Dacca. Thirty-two mahals; revenue Rs. 987,921. (See Āīn, Vol. II, p. 137).

Sarkār Silhat adjoining to Sarkar Bazūha, chiefly extended east of the Surma river. The country was conquered by Musalmans led by a warrior-saint called Shāh Jallāl in the end of the fourteenth century, when the Afghan King Shamsuddin ruled over Bengal with his capital at Gaur. Shāh Jallāl’s shrine in Silhat town still exists. Silhat supplied India with eunuchs, and Jahangir issued an edict forbidding people of Silhat from castrating boys. Eight mahals; revenue Rs. 167,032 (Āīn, Vol. II, p. 139, Blochmann’s Contr., J.A.S., 1873, pp. 216, 235, 278).

Sarkār Sharīfābād comprised south-eastern portions of Birbhūm and a large portion of Burdwan, including Burdwan town. Twenty-six mahals; revenue Rs. 562,218. (Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 139).

Sarkar Madāran extended from Nagor in Western Birbhūm over Raniganj, along the Damūdar to above Burdwan, and thence from there over Khand Ghosh, Jahānābād, Chandrakona (western Hughlī district) to Mandalghāt, at the mouth of the Rūpnarain river. Sixteen mahals; revenue Rs. 235,085 (See Āīn, Vol. II, p. 141).

Sher Shāh had already made plans to shift the seat of Government of Bengal from Tandah to Āgmahal, but this was carried out by Rājah Mān Sīngh, Akbar’s Governor of Bengal, who named the place Rājmahal, and subsequently Akbarnāgar, after Emperor Akbar. Before Mān Singh, Daūd, the last Afghan King of Bengal, had fortified Āgmahal (984 A.H.) in his last stand against Mughuls under Khān Jahan, Akbar’s general (Badaoni, Vol. II, p. 229). Subsequently, in the time of Jahangir, Rajmahal was the scene of a sanguinary battle between Prince Shah Jahan and Jahangir’s Viceroy of Bengal, Ibrahim Khān Fateh Jang, who was killed (Iqbalnamah-i-Jahangirī, p. 221). It was for about twenty years the Viceregal Capital of Bengal, under Prince Shāh Shuja, who adorned the city with beautiful marble-palaces, no trace of which, however, now exists.— (See Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 340).

As early as 1686 A.C., the English East India Company, with permission of Emperor Aurangzeb, established a silk factory here, and in 1770 A.C., English bazar, close to Māldah, was fixed upon as the Commercial residency. Māldah is mentioned in the Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri: “When I (Jahangir) was prince, I had made a promise to Mir Ziyaudin of Tazwīn, a Saifi Syed, who has since received the title of Mustafa Khan, to give him and his children Pargana Māldah, a well-known Pargana in Bengal. This promise was now performed (1617 A.C.)”— See J.A.S., 1873, p. 215n.

Panduah, like Gaur, is situate in the district of Māldah. ‘Alī Mubarak had his capital at Panduah, and the third independent Musalman Afghan King of Bengal, named Shamsuddin Llyas Shāh, fortified the place, and permanently removed the headquarters there about 1353 A.C. Panduah for over 50 years remained the Capital of Bengal, during the reigns of seven Afghan independent Kings of Bengal, after which the capital was in 1446 A.C. during the reign of Nasiruddin Mahmud Shāh re-transferred to Gaur, which was retained by Muhammadans for about three centuries as their capital. The principal buildings at Panduah are the mausoleums of Makhdūm Shāh Jallāl and his grandson Qutb Shāh, the Golden Mosque (1585 A.C.) with wall of granite, and ten domes of brick, the Eklakhi Mosque containing the grave of Ghiasuddin II, the fifth Musalman independent King of Bengal, the Adīna Mosque (fourteenth century) characterised by Mr. Fergusson as the most remarkable example of Pathan architecture, and the Satargarh (seventy towered) palace. Panduah was once famous for its manufacture of indigenous paper, but this industry has now died out. Dr. Buchanan Hamilton gives a detailed description of the ruins of Panduah, and the Khurshid Jahānnumah (an analysis of which Mr. Beveridge has published) supplements it.

Shaikh Jalaluddīn Tabrizī was a disciple of Said Tabrizī, a vicegerent of Shahabuddin Shurawardi, and a friend of Khwājah Qutbuddīn and Shaikh Bahauddīn Zakarīah. Shaikh Najmuddīn, Shaikh-ul-Islam at Delhi, bore him enmity; so the saint went to Bengal. His tomb is in the port of Dev Mahal (or Maldiveisle).— See Aīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 366.

Shaikh Nur Qutbu-l-‘Alam was son and vicegerent of Shaikh Alau-l-Huq (the latter having been vicegerent of Shaikh Akhi Siraj). He was a mystic of eminence, and died in A.H. 808 (A.C. 1405) and was buried at Panduah.— See Āīn, Vol. II, p. 371.

Note on Sarkars of Bengal (principally compiled from Blochmann’s Contributions, Tabaqat-i-Naṣirī, Tarīkh-i-Fīruz Shahī, Āīn-i-Akbarī, Badoanī, Thomas’s Initial coinage, Iqbalnamah-i-Jahangiri, Badshahnamah, and Alamgirnamah.)

Before proceeding to the next section, it may be noted here that our author has not described all the Sarkars or old Musalman administrative divisions or districts of Bengal.

Bengal before Muhammadan conquest in 1198 A.C. consisted of five Divisions, namely (1) Radha, the tract south of the Ganges and west of the Hughlī; (2) Bagdi, the deltaic tract of the Ganges; (3) Banga, the tract to the east and beyond the delta; (4) Barendra, the tracts to the north of the Padda and between the Karatya and Mahananda rivers, and (5) Mithīla, the country west of the Mahananda (See Hamilton’s “Hindustan”). These Divisions appear to have been under different Hindu Rajas or petty chieftains, who had no cohesion amongst them, and were under no allegiance to any central authority, and whose form of government was patriarchal. When Bakhtiar Khilji with eighteen troopers stormed Nadia, then the Hindu capital of Bengal, and conquered Bengal, in 1198 A.C. (594 A.H.) he appears to have conquered Mithila, Barendra, Radha, and the north-western portion of Bagdi. This tract was named Vilayet-i-Lakhnautī after its capital, Lakhnauti city. Its extent is roughly described in 1245 A. C. (641 A.H.) in the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 162, when its author Minhāju-s-Siraj, visited Lakhnauti. Minhaj says that the Vilayet-i-Lakhnauti lies to both sides of the Ganges, and consists of two wings, the eastern one is called Barendra, to which Deokot belongs, and the western called Rāl (Radha) to which Lakhnauti belongs, that on one side the town of Lakhnauti is connected with Deokot, and on the other side with Lakhnor by a causeway or embanked road, ten days’ distance. Deokot has been identified with an old fort, now known simply as Damdamah, on the left branch of the Purnababa, south of Dinajpur, and close to Gangarampur. Bang or East Bengal appears to have been subdued in 1214 A. C. (610 A.H.) by Sultān Ghiasuddin, an immediate successor of Bakhtiar Khilji (Tabaqat, p. 163). During the rule of the Independent Musalman Kings of Bengal (1338 to 1538 A.C.), the extent of the kingdom of Bangala or Bengal was much more apparently than what is described in the Āīn-i-Akbarī, and in the rent-roll of Bengall prepared by Akbar’s Finance Ministers, Khwajah Muzaffar Ali and Todar Mall in 1582 A.C.— (See J.A.S., 1873, p. 254, Tabaqat-i-Naṣirī and Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, Thomas’s ‘Initial Coinage’). In Akbar’s rent-roll, the following 19, Sarkars are mentioned as composing the kingdom of Bengal Proper:—

1. Sarkār Lakhnautī or Jennatabad extending from Teliagadhi (near Colgong), including a few mahals now belonging to Bhagalpur and Purneah districts, and the whole of Maldah district. Sixty-six mahals; khalsa revenue, Rs. 4,71,174.

2. Sarkār Purneah, comprising a great portion of the present district of Purneah, as far as the Mahananda. Nine mahals; revenue Rs. 1,60,219.

3. Sarkār Tajpur, extending over eastern Purneah, east of the Mahananda and western Dinajpur. Twenty-nine mahals; revenue Rs. 1,62,096.

4. Sarkār Panjrāh, north-east of the town of Dinajpur, comprising a large part of Dinajpur district. Twenty-one mahals; revenue Rs. 1,45,081.

5. Sarkār Ghoraghāt, comprising portions of Dinajpur, Rangpur, and Bogra districts, as far as the Brahmaputrā. Eighty-four mahals; revenue Rs. 2,02,077.

6. Sarkār Barbakābād, comprising portions of Maldah, Dinajpur and large portions of Rajshahi and Bogra. Thirty-eight mahals; revenue Rs. 4,36,288.

7. Sarkār Bazūha comprising portions of Rajshahī, Bogra, Pabna, Maimansingh, and reaching a little beyond the town of Dacca in the south. Thiry-two mahals; revenue Rs. 9,87,921.

8. Sirkār Silhat. Eight mahals; revenue Rs. 1,67,032.

9. Sarkār Sunargaon, extending to both sides of the Megna and the Brahmaputrā, including portions of western Tipperah, eastern Dacca, Maimansingh and Noakhali. Fifty-two mahals; revenue Rs. 2,58,283.— (See also Dr. Wise’s ‘note on Sunargaon,’ J.A.S., 1874, No. 1, p. 82).

10. Sarkār Chatgam. Seven mahals; revenue, Rs. 2,85,607.

11. Sarkār Sātgaon comprised a small portion to the west of the Hughli, whilst a large portion comprised the modern districts of the 24-Parganas to the Kabadak river, western Nadia, south-western Murshidabād, and extended in the south to Hatiagarh below Diamond Harbour. To this Sarkar belonged mahal Kalkatta (Calcutta) which together with 2 other mahals paid in 1582 a land revenue of Rs. 23,405. Fifty-three mahals; revenue Rs. 4,18,118.— See also J.A.S., 1870, p. 280.

12. Sarkār Mahmūdabād, so called after Mahmūd Shah, King of Bengal (846 A.H.), comprising north-eastern Nadia, north-eastern Jessore, and western Faridpur. Eighty-eight mahals; revenue, Rs. 2,90,256.

13. Sarkār Khalifatābād, comprising southern Jessore and western Baqirganj (Backergunge). The Sarkar is so named after the haveli perganah Khalifatābād (or ‘clearance of Khalīfah’ Khān Jahān) near Bagerhat. The largest mahal of this Sarkar was Jesar (Jessore) or Rasulpūr. Thirty-five mahals; revenue, Rs. 135,053. In this Sarkar is also Alaipūr, which Professor Blochmann surmises to have been the residence of Sultān Alauddin Husain Shāh, before the latter became King of Bengal.

14. Sarkār Fathabād, so called after Fath Shah, King of Bengal (886 A.H.) comprising a small portion of Jessore, a large part of Farīdpur, northern Baqirganj, a portion of Dhaka district, the island of Dakhin Shahbāzpūr, and Sondip, at the mouth of the Megna. The town of Farīdpūr lies in the haveli pergana of Fathabād. 31 mahals; revenue Rs. 1,99,239.

15. Sarkār Bakla or Bogla, south-east of the preceding, comprised portions of Baqirganj and Dhaka districts. Four mahals; revenue Rs. 1,78,756.

16. Sarkar Udner, or Tandah, comprising the greater portion of Murshidabād district, with portion of Birbhum. Fifty-two mahals; revenue Rs. 6,01,985. Sulaiman Shāh Kararāni, the last but one of the Afghan Kings of Bengal, moved the seat of Government to Tandah from Gaur in 1564 A.C., that is, 11 years before the ruin of the latter.— (Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. II, p. 130n.)

17. Sarkar Sharīfabād, south of the preceding, comprising remaining portions of Birbhum, and a large portion of Burdwan districts, including the town of Burdwan. Twenty-six mahals; revenue Rs. 5,62,218.

18. Sarkar Sulaimānabād, so called after Sulaiman Shah, King of Bengal, comprising a few southern parganas in the modern distriots of Nadia, Burdwan and the whole north of Hughli district. Panduah on the E. I. R. belonged to this Sarkar. The chief town of the Sarkar called Sulaimānabād (afterwards changed to Salīmabād) was on the left bank of the Damūdar, south-east of the town of Burdwan. Thirty-one mahals; revenue Rs. 4,40,749.

19. Sarkār Madaran, extended in a semicircle from Nagor in western Birbhum, over Raniganj along the Damudar to above Burdwan, and from there over Khand Ghosh, Jahauabād, Chandrakona (western Hughli district) to Mandalghat at the mouth of the Rupnarain river. Sixteen mahals; revenue Rs. 2,35,085.

The above 19 Sarkārs which made up Bengal Proper in 1582, paid a revenue on khalsa lands (crown lands) inclusive of a few duties on salt, hats, and fisheries, of Rs. 6,3,37,052. According to Grant the value of jagir lands was fixed at Rs. 4,348,892, so that in 1582 A.C. and from before it, Rs. 10,685,944 was the total revenue of Bengal.— (See J.A.S, 1873, p. 219). This was levied from ryats in specie, as the equivalent of the sixth share of the entire produce of the land, claimed by the sovereign as his share.— (See Āīn-i-Akbarī), pp. 55 and 63, Vol. 2. This rent-roll remained in force during the reign of Jahāngir. Under Shāh Jahān, the boundaries of Bengal were extended on the south-west, Mednipur and Hijli having been annexed to Bengal, and in the east and north-east by conquests in Tipperah and Koch Hajo; and when Prince Shuja was made Governor of Bengal he made about 1658 A.C., a new rent-roll which shewed 34 Sarkars and 1,350 mahals, and a total revenue, in khalsa and jagir lands, of Rs. 1,31,15,907.— (See J.A.S., 1873, p. 219). Shuja’s rent-roll remained in force till 1722 A.C., an addition having been made after the re-conquest of Chittagong, and conquest of Assam and Koch Behar in Aurangzeb’s time. In that year, Nawāb Jafar Khān (Murshid Quli Khān) prepared his ‘Kāmil Jama’ Tumarī’ or ‘perfect rent-roll,’ in which Bengal was divided into 34 Sarkars, forming 13 chaklahs, and subdivided into 1,660 perganas, with a revenue of Rs. 1,42,88,186. After the rule of Nawab Jafar Khān, Abwab revenue (imposts as fees, &c.), appeared in the books. In the time of Shuja Khan, Nawab Jafar’s successor, the Abwabs (see Blochmann’s Contributions and Grant’s report) amounted to Rs. 21,72,952, and they rapidly increased under Nawabs Ali Vardī Khan and Kasim Khan, so that when the E.I. Company in 1765 acquired the Dewani from Emperor Shāh Alam, the net amount of all revenue collected in Bengal Proper was (see Grant’s report) Rs. 2,56,24,223.

I respectfully differ, however, from Professor Blochmann’s conclusions on one point. He would seem to suggest that the above extent of territory with the above Revenue, as gathered from Todar Mal’s rent-roll prepared in 1582 and also from the Āīn-i-Akbarī, Iqbalnamah, Padshahnamah and Alamgirnamah, might be taken to represent the territorial and fiscal strength of the Musalman Bengal kingdom of pre-Mughal times— (J.A.S., 1873, p. 214). This inference is vitiated, in view of the fact that the Musalman Bengal kingdom in pre-Mughal times included for the most part the whole of north Behar, and, under several Musalman Bengal rulers, also south Behar as far westward as Sarkars Mungher and Behar, besides Orissa. This consideration would indicate that the territorial and financial strength of the Musalman Bengal kingdom in pre-Mughal times was greater than what is arrived at in Professor Blochmann’s conclusions. In the Āīn-i-Akbarī, Orissa is included in the Ṣūbah of Bengal, Orissa consisting of 5 Sarkars. Thus, the Sūbah of Bengal is described as consisting of 24 Sarkars (that is, including 5 Sarkars of Orissa), and 787 mahals, and the revenue is stated to be Rs. 1,49,61,482-15-7.— (See Āin, Vol. II, p. 129). Mutamad Khan who was attached to Emperor Jahangir’s Court, in his account of the seventh year of Jahangir’s reign, states that the revenue of Bengal was one Kror and fifty laks in rupees.— (Vide Iqbalnamah-i-Jahangiri, p. 60).

Rājāh Bhagīrath or Bhagdat, son of Narak, had his Capital at the city of Pragjatespur (identified with the modern Gauhatī), is described in the Mahābhārat as espousing the cause of Darjūdhan, and as being slain by the victorious Arjūn. According to the Aīn-i-Akbarī, p. 144, Vol. 2, Bhagīrat or Bhagdat had twenty-three successors in his dynasty.

According to the Āīn, p. 147, Jarjūdhan.

This is the period during which his dynasty ruled. In the Āīn, p. 144, 2418 years.

In the Ain, p. 145, “Bhoj Gauriah.”

In the Ain, p. 145, “520 years.”

In the Ain, “Adsur.”

In the Ain, p. 146, “106 years.”

In the Ain, “45 44” years.

In the Ain, “Sukh Sin.” He is not described as a Boido.

In the Ain, “Naugah.”

In Ferishta “Lakhmanah”; in Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri “Lakhmaniah.”

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, “Naudiah” or “new isle.” According to current legends, it was founded in 1063 A.C. by Lakhman Sēn, son of Ballāl Sen, who resided partly at Gaur, and principally at Bikrampur, in Dacca district. Muhammad Bakhtiār Khīlji in 594 A.H. or 1198 A.C. stormed the fort of Nadiah, and conquered Bengal with eighteen troopers— a sad commentary on the feebleness of the Hiudu Rajah!

This account is repeated in several Musalman histories, such as Tabaqat-i-Naiṣri, Ferishta, Āīn-i-Akbarī. The Tabaqat, p. 151, being the nearest contemporary record, may be specially referred to, especially as its author, Minhaju-s-Siraj, shortly after, in 641 A.H. visited Lakhnauti. One lak cowrie is meant.

Minhaju-s-Siraj in the Tabaqat, pp. 150 and 151, pays a high eulogium to this Rājāh, and extols his virtues and liberality, and winds up by saying: “May God lessen his punishment in the next world!” Verily, Minhāj was himself liberal in his views!

In Ferishta (Per. text), Vol. 1, p. 121, Bahdaj, father of Sūraj, is described as descended from Noah. It is worthy of note, that in the district of Monghyr, on the southern bank of the Ganges, near Maulanagar, there is a town called “Sūrajgarh,” or “fort of Sūraj.” Might not this place have been the birthplace or seat of government of Rājāh Sūraj in the text? The locality is one which would facilitate his excursion into the Dakhin through the defiles of the Vindhya range, of which the text speaks.

This is apparently a mistake in the text for “Rai Bahdaj,” who is mentioned in Ferishta as the father of Rai Sūraj, and as a descendant of Noah.

We meet with the name of “Jharkand” in the “Akbarnamah”; it was the Musalman appellation of “Chutia Nagpur” just as Bharkund was the Musalman appellation of “Sonthal Parganna.”

The Aryans must have fallen very low in the scale of spiritualism, to have needed lessons in religion from a preceptor hailing from Chutia Nagpūr, who was apparently a Dravidian or Sonthali Brahman.

This impringement of “spiritual light” from the defiles of Chutia Nagpūr tract, in the time of Rājāh Sūraj, strengthens my surmise that Sūrajgarh, which is not far from Chutia Nagpūr, was the home or residence of Rājāh Sūraj. It may also be noted that the Sonthalese worship images of their ancestors, which worship is referred to in the text.

Zaidasht or Zartasht or |Zardahasht is the name of a person descended from Manūchahar, and a disciple of Tythagorai. During the reign of Emperor Gashtasp of Persia he claimed to be a prophet, and introduced fire-worship. The Magians regard him as a prophet, and say that his name was Ibrahim, and consider his book the Zend (or Zendavarta), as a revealed book. He is supposed to have been the Zoroaster of the Greeks.

Gashtasp or Keshtab was the Darins Hystaspus of the Greeks, and belonged to the Kainian dynasty; his son, Isfandiar, was the Xerxes of the Greeks, and his grandson, Bahman, was the Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks. (See Namah-i-Khusruan, p. 59).

In Ferishta, “Shangaldip” is called “Shangal,” and so in the text in another place. In Ferishta (Persian text), Vol. 2, p. 233, the following account of Shangaldip or Shangal appears: “Shangal, towards the close of the reign of Rājāh Kedār Brahman, emerging from the environs of Koch (Koch Behar) won a victory over Kedar, and founded the City of Lakhnauti, which is otherwise known as Gaur. Shangal mobilized a force of four thousand elephants, one lak cavalry, and five lak infantry, and stopped paying tribute to Afrasiab, the King of Tūran or Tartary or Scythia. Becoming enraged, Afrasiāb deputed his generalissimo, Pīran-Vīsah, with fifty thousand cavalry, to chastise Shangal.” The rest of the account of Ferishta tallies with that in the text.

Kuch Behar used to be known in early days as the tract of the “Koch tribe” or simply as “Koch.”

“Iran” or Persia here in the text is evidently a mistake for “Tūran” or Tartary or Scythia, of which Afrāsiāb was monarch. This indicates the subjection of India (like Persia) to the Scythians at a remote period.

Afrāsiāb (conqueror of Persia) was an ancient king of Tūran or Tartary or Scythia. He was a Mongol by birth. He conquered Persia, killed Nazar with his own hand, and reigned there for about twelve years, about seven centuries before the Christian era, but was subsequently driven beyond the Oxus by a famous chief called Zalzar. Afrāsiāb again overran Persia, but was at last defeated and slain in Arzibījān by Zalzar and his celebrated son, Rustam, the Persian Hercules. Afrāsiāyab appears, however, to have been a family surname, like the Pharaoahs, the Ptolemys, the Cæsars.

The capital of China used to be called in those days “Khanbaligh,” or “City of the Great Khān.”

Rustam, the Persian Hercules. He was a successful general under the first kings of the Kaianian dynasty, in their wars of defence against the incursions into Persia of the Turanian or Scythian monarchs. For a graphic account of those stirring warfares between the Scythians or Turanians or Mongolians and Iranians or Persians, see “Shahnāmah” of Firdausī, the Homer of the East. It is worthy of note that Firdansi, in his immortal Persian epic, gives also the name of an Indian prince as Shangal, in connection with the adventures of Bahram Gaur, a Persian monarch of the Sassanian dynasty, who reigned in the middle of the fourth century. Perhaps, this later Shangal was a descendant of the original Shangal taken captive by Afrāsiāb, the Scythian monarch. In this connection, it may also be noted for grasping chronological relations referred to in the text, that there were the following four dynasties of old Persian kings: (1) Peshdadians, including the Kaimuras, the Jamshids, and the Faridūns; (2) the Kaianians, founded by Kaikubad about 600 B.C., including Khusrau or Kai Khusrau, Bahman, and Darah or Darius &c. (3) Ashkanins, including Hormuz, &c., &c. (4) the Sassanians, founded in 202 A.C. by Ardisher Babegan, including Bahram Gaur and Naushirvan, &c. (See Namai-Khusruan, a short Persian History of Persia by Mirza Muhammad).

At the time when Sultān Muizuddīn Muhammad Sam alias Shahābudīn Ghorī, made incursions into Hindustān, Rājāh Jaichand Rathor ruled at Kanauj and Benares, and Rājāh Pethaura Tonwar ruled at Delhi. Tabaqat, p. 120.

But it must be noted that there is in the text (probably owing to mistake of the copyist of the original manuscript text) a confusion in the sequence of events related.

In the neighbourhood of the Panjab, Alexander gave battle to the Hindū prince, Porus, who had advanced from Kanauj, and put him to rout.

Abūl Faẓl in the Āīn says: “ A part of the northern mountains of the Subah of Delhī is called Kumayun. Here are mines of gold, silver, lead, iron, copper, and borax. Here are also found the musk-deer and the Kūlās cow and silkworms” Āīn-i-Akbarī, Vol. 2, p. 280.

In Ferishta, “Ramdeo Rathor.”

Most of these legends and traditions regarding Bengal and India of pre-Moslem times have been borrowed by our author from Ferishta. For the most part, they consist of a huge mass of mythological fictions, to extract a few grains of sober historical truth wherefrom, I must leave to more competent hands. Yet it is worthy of note (as our author’s narrative indicates) that India and Bengal in very early times had political connection of some sort with Scythia and (through the latter) with Persia. It is probable that ethnologically, these Scythian incursions resulted to a great extent in an admixture of Scythian and Aryan races in India, which admixture was further complicated by the subsequent Dravidian incursions from the south.

This period extended from 1198 A.C. to 1338 A.C.

This is not quite accurate. Bengal was conquered by Bakhtiār Khilj-al-Ghazī (Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 146), in 594 A.H. or 1198 A.C. (for the discussion of the date, see Tabaqat, p. 150, and Blochmann’s contribution to history of Bengal), whilst Emperor Shahabuddin Ghori alias Muizuddin Muhammad Sam was yet alive, and whilst Qutbuddin Aibak ruled at Delhi, as the latter’s Indian Viceroy, that is, only 7 years after the Musalman occupation of Delhi, which took place in 587 A.H. or 1191 A.C. (Tabaqat, pp. 139, 140 and 128). He was called “Aibak,” because his little finger was feeble or paralyzed (Tabaqat, p. 138), whilst according to another account, “Aibak” signified the “brilliant chief.” His name is preserved in his Capital by the Qutb mosque and by the Qutb Minar, though these were erected to commemorate other more or less forgotten worthies. Bakhtiār Khiljī in the first instance conquered Bengal on his own initiative, though he acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of Shahabuddin and subsequently of Qutbuddin, when the latter mounted the throne of Delhi (Tabaqat, p. 140). That this was so, appears from the circumstance that in the list of Malūks and Sultāns under Shahabuddin alias Muizu-d-dīn contained in Tabaqat (pp. 146 and 137), Bakhtiār is assigned a co-ordinate position with Qutbuddin. In this connection, it is worth noting that owing to a popular and common fallacy, these early pre-Mughul Moslem rulers of India have been described as ‘Pathan rulers of India.’ As pointed out by Major Raverty in his translation of Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, neither the Ghoris, nor their slaves, “the Slave-kings of Delhi,” nor the Tughluks, nor the Khiljīs were Afghans or ‘Pathans,’ but that they were all Turkish tribes. (See also Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 150, where the expression “Turkān” or ‘Turks’ is constantly employed, with reference to the first Musalman conquerors of Behar and Bengal). According to the ‘Masalik-ul-Mumalik,’ says Major Raverty in an article in A.S.J. for 1875, No. 1, p. 37, “the Khalj are a tribe of Turks which in former times settled in Garmsīr, between Sijistan and the region of Hind. They are in appearance and dress like Turks, and observe the customs of that race, and all speak the Turkish language.” The Khaljs or Khiljis have been by several writers erroneously confounded with the Afghan tribe of “Ghalzis” or “Ghiljis.” The first Afghan or ‘Pathan’ who sat on the throne of Delhi was Sultān Bahlul of the Lodi tribe, the thirtieth Musalman ruler of India, counting from Qutbuddin Aibak.

It is worthy of note that in the times of Bakhtiār Khiljī and his immediate successors, South Behar was included in the Bengal or Lakhnaut, Viceroyalty. South Behar was separated from the Bengal Viceroyalty in 622 H. by Emperor Altamsh who placed it under a distinct governor, named Alauddin Janī. On withdrawal of the Emperor, Behar was again annexed by the Bengal ruler, Ghiasuddin (see Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 163). It continued to be a part of the Bengal Kingdom till 1320, when Emperor Ghiasuddin Tughlak again separated it. Behar belonged to the Sharqī Kingdom of Jaunpur from 1397 A.C.; again under Ibrahim, Bahadur Khan, son of Governor Darya Khān, assumed independence in Behar, with the title of Shāh Muhammad, and about 1498 A.C. or about 903 A.H. South Behar again became more or less subject to the Musalman Kings of Gaur, Husain Shāh and Naṣrat Shāh. Under the early Mughul Emperors, Behar was again formed into a distinct Ṣūbah, but under the later Mughuls, it again became incorporated along with Orissa in the great Bengal Viceroyalty. North Behar appears to have been generally included in the Musalmān Kingdom of Bengal (see Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī, pp. 451 and 586).

Abūl Fazl places ‘Ghor’ to the north of Kandahar, and ‘Garmsir’ to the west of Kandahar. In ‘Garmsir’ lay the city of Ferozkoh, the capital of the Ghorīan Sultāns.

Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, (Pers. text, p. 146) which is the nearest contemporary account, describes Bakhtiār Khiljī as “active, agile, brave, bold, learned and intelligent.” It says that he went to Ghaznī to seek service under Sultān Muizuddin, but owing to his slender appearance was rejected by the Sultān’s War Minister. Disappointed, Bakhtiār came to Delhi, where also he was rejected by the War Minister (Dewan-i-‘Arz).

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri p. 147, which is the most reliable account, ‘Badaon.’ The Tabaqat mentions the name of the feudatory of Badaon to be Sipasalar Hazbaru-d-dīn Hasan Arnab.

Major Raverty identifies Bakhtiār Khiljī’s jagir lands with the parganahs of ‘Bhagwat and Bhoili,’ south of Benaras, and east of Chūnargarh. Professor Blochmann considers this identification satisfactory. (See Raverty’s translation of Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri and Blochmann’s contr. to history and Geography of Bengal).

This account does not accord strictly with what is contained in the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, (Pers. text, p. 147), the nearest contemporary account for the period. In Tabaqat, it is stated that after being rejected by War Ministers both at Ghaznī and at Delhī, owing to his slender appearance, Bakhtiār Khilji proceeded to Badaon, presented himself before its feudal baron, general Hazbaru-d-din Hassan Arnab, who allotted him a fixed pay, that thence Bakhtiār proceeded to Oudh and presented himself before its feudal baron, Malik Hassamuddin Ughalbak, who conferred on him fiefs of Sahlat and Sahli (identified with Bhagwat and Bhoeli), and finding him brave and bold sent him (apparently on reconnoitering expeditions) towards Munir near Patna, and Behar town. In these reconnoitering expeditions for one or two years, Bakhtiār gathered a large booty, when the Delhi Viceroy (Qutbuddin) recognized tardily Bakhtiār’s merits. It would thus appear that but for Bakhtiar’s own tenacity, the stupidity of the War ministers of Ghaznīn and Delhi would have robbed the Indo-Moslem Empire of a valuable recruit, and perhaps postponed indefinitely its rapid expansion towards Behar and Bengal!

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, pp. 147 and 148 it is stated that Bakhtiār presented himself before the gate of the fort of Behar with two hundred horse-girths and armours covered with fur-cloth (), and stormed the fort, and that Bakhtiār had with him at the time two wise brothers, named Nizamud-dīn and Samsamuddīn (of Farghana).

The second year after his conquest of Behar, Bakhtiār Khiljī set out for Bengal, stormed Nadia, and conquered Bengal. Therefore, the conquest of Behar took place in 592 A.H. or 1196 A.C.

The text is not strictly in accord with the account given in the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri which is the most reliable and the nearest contemporary account for the period. Whilst in the service of the feudatory of Oudh (Tabaqat, Pers. text, p. 147), Bakhtiār reconnoitered Behar for one or two years, and carried off much plunder. Qutb-u-dīn, the Delhi Viceroy, then called Bakhtiār to Lahore tardily recognized his merits, and loaded him with presents. Bakhtiār returned to Behar, and conquered it, and carrying off again a large booty, presented himself to Qutb-u-dīn at Delhi, where he had to undergo a gladiatorial ordeal at the White Castle (Qasr-i-Sufed of Delhi), and then receiving presents from Qutb-u-dīn, returned to Behar, and the second year after his conquest of Behar, he invaded and conquered Bengal, storming and sacking Nadia, and establishing himself at the village or mouza of Lakhnauti (Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 151). This would indicate that Lakhnauti was founded by him, and was distinct from Gaur, though possibly close to it.

The Tabaqat (Pers. text, p. 151) states that the Rājah (Lakhmanīa) was then sitting in his inner apartments, with his food set before him in gold and silver plates, when the sudden inrush of Bakhtiār Khiljī with eighteen troopers, struck terror, and the Rājah ran out bare-foot by a back-door, and fled to Sanknat and Bang, his treasures, harem, slaves and servants and women and elephants all falling into Bakhtiār’s hands.

Some copies of the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri have ‘Saknat’ and also ‘Sankanat.’ Tabaqat-i-Akbari has “Jagannath.”

According to other and more reliable accounts, the Rājah fled from Nadiah to Bikrampur, south-east of Dacca. I think therefore “ in the printed text of the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri is a copyist’s mistake for “,” meaning the Rājah’s “Bengal Residence” which was at Bikrampur from before.

Kamrūd (or Kamrūp) as well as Sanknat and Bang is mentioned in the Tabaqat (Pers. text, p. 150), in connection with the previous flight from Nadiah of Brahmans and Sahas who hearing of Bakhtiār’s prowess and of his conquest of Behar, anticipated Bakhtiār’s invasion of Bengal, and had advised the Rājah to shift with all his troops and people from Nadiah to his residence in East Bengal (at Bikrampur). The astrologers had also prepared the Rājah for Bakhtiār’s conquest. But the Rājah was deaf to all advice, whilst the Brahmans and Sahas had fled. It is opposed to the probablities of the case that the subsequent defeat of the Rājah by eighteen troopers of Bakhtiār was brought about by any foul play or stratagem from one side or the other; because the Rājah was a good, noble and generous prince, and the idol of his people, and even the Musalman historian (author of the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri) pays him a glowing tribute. (See Tabaqat, p. 149).

Muhammad Bakhtiār Khiljī was not a military marauder or a religious fanatic. He was, no doubt, a champion of Islam, but at the same time combined in himself all the qualities of a great general and a wise statesman. We read in the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri (Pers. text, p. 151), that both in Behar and Bengal, just after their conquest, he established Mosques, Colleges, Khanqahs or Charitable establishments consisting of Students’ Hostels and travellers’ Guest-houses, founded cities, and established military outposts at strategic points, and introduced the coinage of money (see Tabaqat, pp. 151 and 149). He laid down embankments, constructed roads and bridges connecting his northern military outposts at Deokot and his southern military outpost at Laknor (perhaps Nagor in Birbhum) with his newly-founded capital at Lakhnauti.

i.e., 594 A.H. or 1198 A.C. This subordination (during Bakhtiār Khiljī and at least two of his immediate successors) was nominal, as Bakhtiār conquered Bengal and Behar on his own account, though he outwardly acknowledged the suzerainty of Delhi.

A town and a celebrated hill-fort in Banda district.

In the text ‘Mahma,’ which is evidently a mistake of the copyist. Mahaba is a town about 15 miles from Lucknow city.

A town in Jalaun district, North-Western Provinces, on the right bank of the Jamna.

On the banks of the river Sot, North-Western Provinces, first conquered by Sayad Sabar Masūd Ghazi, nephew of Sultān Mahmūd of Ghaznī, in 1028 A.C., and re-conquered by Qutbu-d-dīn in 1196 A.C.

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, p. 152, “Tibbet and Turkistan.”

One can easily imagine what an immense Musalman army Bakhtiār Khiljī must have subsequently poured into Bengal from the Upper Western Provinces, to have enabled him to detach 10,000 cavalry for an expedition into Tibbat, without weakening his garrison in the newly conquered Provinces of Bengal and Behar, especially as we read in the Tabaqat (p. 157), that at the same time he sent a detachment under Muhammad Shīrān to invade Jajnagar (Orissa). Those who are given to amazement at the present numerical strength of Musalman population in Bengal, and are at pains to evolve theories to account for it, might as well bear in mind these elementary facts of history.

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri p. 152 “Mardhan-Kote” and “Bardhan-Kote;” in Badaoni, p. 58, Vol. I, “Brahman.” The ruins of ‘Bardhan-Kote’ lie north of Bogra close to Gobindgunje, on the Karatya river, not far from Ghoraghat, and this is the place meant according to Professor Blochmann.

A King of Tūrān or Turkistan or Tartary or Scythiā; but in Namah-i-Khusruan, p. 7, he is described as the last sovereign of the Peshdadian dynasty of Persia. In Feri shtā it is stated that when Garshasp made an incursion into Hindustān from Turkistān, he founded the city of Bardhan.”

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri p. 152, ‘Bagmatī’ and ‘Bakmadī’; in Badaoni, p. 58, Vol. I, “Brahmanputr” and “Brahmkadi.” The river referred to has been identified by Professor Blochmann to be the Karatya, which formed for a long time the boundary between ancient Muhammadan Bengal and Kamrūp.

This ten days’ march extended northward along the banks of the Karatya and the Teesta, which latter before 1784 flowed west of the Karatya, joined the Atraī, and fell into the Padma, and of all Bengal rivers extended furthest into Tibbat. This march then was along the frontier between ancient Musalman Bengal and the territory of the Rājah of Kāmrūp. Bakhtiār’s Tibbatan expedition must have commenced in the latter part of 605 A.H. (1209 A.C.) or beginning of 606 A.H. (1210 A.C.)

This bridge must have been in the neighbourhood of Darzheling (or Darjecling) which in those days appears to have been the boundary separating the Meches from the hill-tribes. The author of the Tabaqāt-i-Naṣiri (Pers. text, p. 152), in this connection mentions the following three tribes as then inhabiting Northern Bengal, viz., (1) Koch, (2) Mech, and (3) Tharo; vide also Dalton’s Ethnology of Bengal.

In the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri (Pers. text, p. 153), this march is thus related: “After leaving a Turkish officer and a Khiljī officer with a large body of troops to guard the bridge……Muhammad Bakhtiār Khīljī with his army for fifteen days marched across high hills and low defiles, and on the sixteenth day (from his march from the bridge) descended into the open plain of Tibbat, and passed many populous villages,……and after some eight hours’ hard fighting, entrenched himself in a fort there.”

The Tabaqāt-i-Naṣiri names the city Karmbatan. Bakhtiār Khiljī’s march from the bridge was northward for sixteen days.

The fair at Nik-mardan, 40 miles north-west of Dinajpūr, attracts every year a large number of hill-ponies, which go thence to other places in Bengal and elsewhere.

In 15 days Bakhtiār Khiljī retreated from the hills of Tibbat into the plains ?? Kamrūp. According to Major Raverty, from the hills of Darjeeling, Bakhtiār Khiljī had advanced through Sikkim into Tibbat towards the Sangpa.

Very likely, the temple of Mahumanī in Kāmrūp district.

It would appear that the Rājah of Kāmrūp who had offered his services to Bakhtiār Khiljī, in the end turned out treacherous.

For a discussion of the route of Bakhtiār Khiljī’s expedition into Tibbat, and of his retreat therefrom, see Raverty’s notes in his translation of Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, and Blochmann’s Contributions to History and Geography of Bengal, J.A.S. for 1875, No. 3, Part I, p. 283.

Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri (Pers. printed text, p. 156) states that Bakhtiār Khiljī successfully swam across the river with only one hundred troopers, whilst all the rest of his army were drowned.

Deokot or Damdamah, near Gangarampur, south of Dinajpur, was the northern Musalman Military outpost in the time of Bakhtīar Khīljī, who had set out for Tibbat either from Deokot or Lakhnauti.

Ali Mardān assassinated Muhammad Bakhtīar Khīljī in 606 A.H. (1210 A.C.) at Deokot. This date is arrived at if Bengal was conquered in 594 A.H. or 1198 A.C. by Bakhtiār Khīljī, as the best accounts would indicate, and also if he reigned for 12 years over Bengal. Professor Blochmann mentions 602 A.H. as the date of Bakhtiār’s assassination, but he accepts 594 A.H. as the date of the Bengal conquest— which involves chronological contradiction.

Mr. Thomas in his “Initial Coinage of Bengal” states that Ali Mardān assumed independence under the title of Alauddin when Qutbuddin Aibak died in Lahore in 607 A.H. Thus allowing 8 months for Malik Azuddin’s rule, Bakhtiar Khīljī appears to have been assassinated about the middle of 606 A.H.— the date previously arrived at by me.

In Badaoni, it is stated that Muhammad Bakhtiār Khīljī returned to Deokot from Tibbat with only some three hundred troopers, the rest of his expeditionary force having perished, and fell ill from vexation, and was attacked with hectic fever, and used to say “no doubt Sultān Muhammad Muizuddin has met with an accident, that fortune has gone so against me.” And when he became weak from illness, Ali Murdan, one of Muhammad Bakhtiar’s principal officers, arrived at Deokot, and finding him bed-ridden, pulled down the sheet from his face, and despatched him with one blow of a dagger. The above account is rendered thus by the Tabaqat-i-Niṣiri, the nearest contemporary account, (Pers. text, 1 p. 156):— When Bakhtiār Khījī with about one hundred troopers only made good his escape across the river, ‘Ali Mich with his relatives rendered good services, and conducted Bakhtiār Khīljī towards Deokot. On arrival at Deokot, from excessive humiliation Bakhtiār fell ill and shut himself up, and did not ride out in the streets, for whenever he did so, widows and orphans of the soldiers and officers that had fallen, used to curse and abuse him from the terraces and the streets. Bakhtiār would say “Some mishap must have befallen Suḷṭan Muizuddin, for the tide of fortune to have thus turned against me.” And it was a fact, for at that time Sultān Muizuddin had fallen at the hands of an assassin (a Ghakkar). From excessive humiliation, Muhammad Bakhtiar Khīljī fell ill and was confined to his bed, and at length died. And according to another account, one of his officers ‘Alī Mardān Khīljī who was bold and ferocious, and held the fief of Deokot, on hearing the news of Bakhtiār’s illness, came to Deokot, found him lying in bed, threw aside the sheet from his face, and slew him.”

His name was Malik ‘Azuddin Muhammad Shīrān Khīljī (Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, Pers. text p. 157). The following account of him is summarised from Tabaqāt, the nearest contemporary account: “Muhammad Shīran and Ahmad Iran were two brothers, both being Khilj noblemen, and in the service of Bakhtiār. When Bakhtiār led his expedition towards Tibbat, he sent the above two brothers with an army towards Lakhnautī and Jajnagar (Orissa). When these heard the news of Bakhtiār’s assassination, they returned to Deokot, and after performing funeral ceremonies, proceeded towards Narkoti (not identified, but must have lain not far from Deokot) which was held in fief by ‘Ali Mardān Khīljī. They captured the latter, and placed him in charge of the Kotwal (the police commissioner) of that place, named Baba Kotwal Ispahanī, and returned to Deokot. Muhammad Shīran was an energetic man endowed with noble qualities. At the conquest of Nudeah, he had rendered good service by capturing elephants. As he was head of the Khīljī oligarchy, all the Khiljī nobles acknowledged him as their chief and paid homage to him. In the meantime, Alī Mardān Khiljī made good his escape, proceeded to Delhi, and persuaded Sultān Qutbuddīn to depute from Oudh Qaimaz Rūmī to Lakhnauti, in order to put down the Khīljī oligarchy in Bengal. Hussamuddin Iwaz who held the fief of Kanktorī (Kangor, near Deokot) from Bakhtiār Khīljī, went ahead to receive Qaimaz Rūmī, and in the latter’s company proceeded to Deokot, and on the initiative of Qaimaz, received the fief of Deokot. When Qaimaz was returning from Deokot, Muhammad Shīrān and other Khīljī nobles collected together, and attempted to re-take Deokot. Qaimaz came back, fought with the Khilji nobility and Muhammad Shīrān, who being defeated, dispersed, quarrelled amongst themselves near Makidah (Masīdah, a perganah south-east of Deokot) and Mantosh (Santosh, a perganah south-east of Deokot), and Muhammad Shīrān was slain. He lies buried at Santosh (on the banks of the Atrāi river).

‘Ali Mardan Khīljī, assassin of Bakhtiār Khīljī and Azuddin Khīlji, ruled from 607 A.H. to 609 or 610 A.H. and assumed independence and title of Sultān ‘Alauddin, on the death of Qutbu-d-dīn Aibak. In Tabaqāt-i-Naṣiri it is stated that he recited the Khutbah; but Badaoni states that he minted also coins in his own name. [I have not yet seen any of his coins. Mr. Thomas in his ‘Initial Coinage of Bengal” notices the coins of Abauddin’s successor, Ghiasuddin, struck in A.H. 616, see J.A.S., p. 354, p. 1, Vol. XLII for 1873]. It is also stated in Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri (Pers. text, p. 159), that from excessive insolence, he divided the country of Irān and Tūrān amongst his adherents, and no one dared to suggest that those dominions did not pertain to him. One person complained of poverty to Alauddin, who enquired whence he came. On learning he came from Ispahan, he ordered his ministers to write out a document assigning lands in Ispahan to him!

It is stated in Tabaqāt, that on escape from the custody of the Kotwal of Narkoti, Ali Mardān went to Sultān Qutbu-d-dīn, and received the Viceroyalty of Lakhnauti. When he crossed the Kosi river, Hussamuddin from Deokot received him, conducted him to Deokot, where Ali Mardān was formally installed in power. He was cruel and ferocious, killed many Khīljī nobles, and the native chieftains trembled under him. The subjects as well as the soldiers were in disgust with him.

His real name was Hussamuddin Iwaz-bin Al-Husain. He was a noble of Khilji and Garmsir, and on joining Bakhtiār Khilji was first appointed to fief of Kangor, (which lay south-east of Deokot) and next promoted to charge of the important northern military outpost of Deokot. On the appointment of Ali Mardan Khilji to the rule of Bengal, he advanced to receive the new Viceroy on the banks of the Kosi river, and helped in the latter’s installation at Deokot. On the assassination by the Khilji nobles of Ali Mardan, who had since the death of Emperor Qutbuddin Aibak assumed independence, Hussamuddin was elected chief of the Khilji oligarchy in Bengal in 609 or 610 A.H. Seeing the feebleness of Qutbuddin’s successor, Aram Shāh, Hussamu-d-din assumed independence, made Lakhnạuti his capital, and assumed the title of Sultān Ghiāsu-d-dīn about 612 A.H., and minted coins in his own name. Mr. Thomas in his “Initial Coinage of Bengal” notices several coins of Sultān Ghiasu-d-dīn struck at Gaur or Lakhnauti between 614 and 620 A.H. An examination of these coins indicates the interesting and curious fact that Ghiāsu-d-dīn had put himself in communication with the Khalifa of Baghdad so far back as 620 A.H. (that is, earlier than Emperor Altamsh of Delhi who obtained similar honour in 626 A.H.) and obtained a pontificial patent, recognizing the sovereign of Bengal amongst the Moslem hierarchy of the world. This circumstance, as suggested by Mr. Thomas, would also indicate that in those days there was freer sea and ocean-intercourse between the Musalmans along the shores of Bengal and the Arabs of the sea-ports of Basrah and Baghdad, than between Musalmans of more inland places in India and the Arabs of the aforesaid sea-ports.

In 622 A.H., Emperor Altamsh from Delhi invaded Bengal, and on Sultān Ghiasuddīn paying him tribute, peace was concluded. In 624 A.H. Sultān Nāṣiruddīn, eldest son of Emperor Altamsh, invaded Lakhnauti, whilst Ghiāsuddīn was engaged at Kamrup and Bang (East Bengal), and fought a battle with Sultān Ghiāsuddīn, on the latter’s return, and killed the latter, and succeeded to the rule over Bengal in a semi-sovereign capacity, with the approval of his father, Emperor Altamsh. It is stated that Sultān Ghiāsuddīn extended and consolidated the Moslem sovereignty in Bengal, and extended his empire over Jajnagar (Orissa), Bang (East Bengal), Kamrud (or Kamrup, Western Assam), and Tirhut (see Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, Pers. text, p. 163.) Minhajus-Siraj, Author of Tabaqat-i-Naṣirī who visited Lakhnauti shortly after in 641 A.H. and appreciated the material improvements effected by Ghiāṣuddīn, pays him a high tribute (Pers. text, p. 161), a tribute which in 627 A H. Emperor Altamsh had also paid to the memory of this good and great sovereign, by decreeing that Ghiāsuddīn should in his grave be styled as a Sultān. Amongst his public works, Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri mentions that he founded the Fort of Baskot (Basankot near Gaur), established mosques, and Public Halls, &c.

His body was brought to Delhi, and enshrined by the loving father in a beautiful mausoleum (known as the mausoleum of Sultān Ghāzī), about three miles west of the celebrated Quṭb Minar. In the inscription on the mausoleum, Nāṣiruddīn is entitled “Emperor of the East,” or “Malik-ul-Maluk-ul-Sharq.” Emperor Altamsh so much loved the memory of his eldest son (the King of Bengal) that he bestowed his name (i.e., Nāṣiruddīn) on his (Emperor’s) younger son who afterwards mounted the throne of Delhi, after whom Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri is named.

In Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, “Balka Malik Khīljī.” The correct name appears to be Malik Ikhtiaruddin Balka, who assumed the title of Doulat Shāh, and minted coins. Mr. Thomas in his “Initial Coinage of Bengal” notices a coin of Doulat Shāh struck in 627 A.H. To put down Doulat Shāh, Emperor Altamsh personally invaded Bengal for the second time in 627 A. H., defeated Doulat Shāh or Ikhtiaruddin Balka, and entrusted the government of Bengal to Alauddin Khān or Alauddīn Jānī. (Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, Pers. text, p. 174).

In Badoni, “Malik Alauddin Khafi,” in Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri “Alauddīn Jani.” After his first invasion of Bengal, in 622 A.H., Sultān Shamsuddin Altamsh separated Behar from Bengal, which was under Sultān Ghiasuddin, and left Alauddin Jani as its Governor. On Altamsh’s withdrawal, Sultān Ghiasuddin wrested Behar again from Alauddin Jānī, and hence the second invasion of Bengal by Emperor Altamsh’s son.

The following account of him is abridged by me from Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, the nearest contemporary account (Pers. text, p. 238):— “Malik Saifuddin Aibak Ighantat was a Turk of Khata; he was a noble Malik, and was endowed with excellent qualities. Sultān Nāṣiruddin Mahmud, King of Bengal, (son of Emperor Altamsh), purchased him, and kept him in his company, first appointing him as Amir-ul-Majlis (Lord Chamberlain) and then conferring on him the fief of Sarsati. Subsequently, for his good services, he was appointed Governor of Behar, and next promoted to the Viceroyalty of Bengal (Lakhnauti), when Alauddin Jani, the Bengal Viceroy, was recalled. He captured several elephants in Vilayet-i-Bang (East Bengal), sent them as presents to the Delhi Emperor (Shamsuddin Altamsh) and received the title of Ighantat.

The following account of him is summarised by me from Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, the nearest contemporary account (Pers. text, p. 242);— Malik Tughan Khān Turki was comely in appearance, and noble in heart. He hailed from Khata. He was liberal and generous, endowed with noble qualities; in liberality and generosity, and in conciliating and winning over people, he had no match in the army. When the Sultān (Emperor Altamsh) purchased him, he first became the Royal cup-bearer, next he was appointed Secretary and Keeper of the Imperial Seal (Dawat Dar). He lost the Imperial jewelled ink-pot, and was degraded to the office of Chashnigir (a taster to a prince), and after a long time, was appointed Superintendent of the Imperial stables (Amir-i-Akhur); and after some time, was appointed feudatory of Badaon, and next appointed Governor of Behar, when Lakhnauti (Bengal) was conferred on Ighantat Saifuddin Aibak. At length when Saifuddin died, Tughan Khān was appointed to the vacant Bengal (Lakhnauti) Viceroyalty. After the death of Sultān Nāṣiruddin Mahmūd (son of Emperor Altamsh, and Viceroy of Bengal), between Tughan Khān and the feudatory of Lakhnauti named Lakor Aibak, who enjoyed the title of Aur Khān, ill-feeling broke out. Tughan Khān fought with Lakor Aibak before the fort of Basankot, close to Lakhnauti, defeated and killed the latter, and subdued both wings of Lakhnauti, one being in Radh on the side of Lakor (probably Nagor) and the other being in Barand, on the side of Deokot. At this time, Empress Raziah ascended the Imperial throne of Delhi, and Tughan Khān sent envoys with presents to Delhi, and received in return Imperial presents sent in charge of Qazi Jallaluddin. Tughan proceeded from Lakhnauti to Tirhut district, and acquired much booty and treasure. When Sultān Muizuddin Bahram Shāh ascended the Imperial throne of Delhi, Tughan Khān sent the former also presents. When Sultān Alauddin succeeded Bahram Shāh, Bahauddin Hullal Sudani invaded Oudh, Manikpur, and Karah and cast eyes on the eastern provinces, and so Tughan Khān went to Karah and Manikpur, (to conciliate Bahauddin and to turn him back), and in Oudh met Minhaju-s-Siraj, (author of Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri), and with the latter went back to Lakhnauti in 641 A.H. At this time the Rajah of Jajnagar (Orissa) committed depredations in Lakhnauti. Tughan Khān that year, by way of reprisal, invaded Jajnagar (Minhaju-s-Siraj accompanying him) and reached and stormed the fort of Baktasan, which is on the Orissa frontier. Fighting ensued, and the Musalmans were defeated. Tughan Khān returned to Lakhnauti, sent Sharfu-l-mulk Ashari to the Emperor of Delhi, to seek for help. Under Emperor’s order, a large army led by Tamar Khān Qamruddin Qiran, feudatory of Oudh, was sent to Lakhnauti, in order to repel and chastise the infidels of Jajnagar (Orissa) The Rajah of Jajnagar invaded Lakhnauti, owing to Musalmans in the previous expedition having demolished the Orissa fort of Katasan (or Baktasan). The Orissans first took Lakor (probably Nagor), and slaughtered a large body of Musalmans including the Commandant of Lakor, named Fakhrul Mulk Karimuddin, and then approached the gate of Lakhnauti, but after fighting retreated. Then between Tughan Khān and Tamar Khān ill-feeling ensued, and they fought against each other, and on both sides many were killed. By the intercession of Mínhaju-s-Siraj (author of Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri) peace was brought about between the two, on condition that Lakhnauti would be left to Tamar Khān, and Tughan Khān with his treasures and elephants and effects would retire to Delhi. Tughan did so (in his company being Minhaju-s-Siraj); the Emperor loaded him with presents, bestowed on him the Governorship of Oudh, whilst Tamar Khān held the Bengal Viceroyalty. On the same night, both died, Tamar Khān at Lakhnauti, and Tughan in Oudh!”

It would appear from the above that the invasion of Bengal by Mughals under Changiz Khān referred to in the text, is a myth and a mistake for the invasion of Lakhnauti by the Hindus of Jājnagar (Orissa). The mistake is repeated in many histories, but Tabaqat’s account is the most reliable, as its author was an eye-witness of the affair.

The daughter of Emperor Altamsh. named Raziah, ascended the throne of Delhi in accordance with her father’s wishes in 634 A.H. (1236 A.C.) The sight of an unveiled Moslem Empress seated on the Imperial throne of Delhi, struck all Indo-Moslem eyes in those days as a curious phenomenon, and hence our author’s expression, “Juggling sky.” She reigned for three years from 1236 A.C. to 1239 A.C. According to Badaoni, the Empress was endowed with excellent qualities, and was brave, generous and intelligent. She followed the path of equity and the principles of justice, and set in order the affairs which had remained in confusion during the brief reign of her step-brother Sultān Ruknuddin Fīruz Shāh. She set before her the pursuit of beneficence as the object of her ambition, and made Nizamul Junaidi, Chief Vizier. The Empress came out of the curtain, wore masculine garments, such as a tunic and a Kullah, and sat on the throne. According to Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, she was put to death by the Hindus. She was learned in the Qoran, industrious in public business, firm and energetic in every crisis. Indeed, she was a great woman and a great Queen.

Malik Qurābēg Tamar Khān or Qamru-d-dīn Qiran Tamar Khān was Governor of Bengal from 642 A.H. to 644 A.H., when he died.

An account of his career in Bengal already appears in a previous note His previous career may, however, be noticed here. I summarise it from Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri (Pers. text, p. 247), which is a contemporary account:— “Mallik Tamar Khān Turk was virtuous and polished in manners, very energetic and generous and active and brave. He had a handsome appearance. Sultān Shamsu-d-dīn Altamsh purchased him for 50,000 chital, appointed him Deputy Superintendent of the Royal Stables, whilst Tughan Khan was the Chief Superintendent. In the reign of Empress Raziah, he became feudatory of Kanauj, and fought in the expedition against Kahwar and Malwah, and rendered good services. He received fief of Karah, and also did good service there. On the death of Nasiru-d-dīn, he was appointed Governor of Oudh. Whilst at Oudh, he invaded all the eastern tracts including Tirhut, and carried off immense booty. He was thence sent to Lakhnauti to help Tughan Khān in repelling the Ooriya invasion, and after that settled down in Bengal as its Viceroy.

After him the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri is named; it is a general history of India from the commencement of Musalman Rule down to 658 A.H. (1260 A.C.) Sultān Nasiru-d-dīn succeeded Sultān Alau-d-dīn to the throne of Delhi in 1246 A.C. His Vizier was Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban (afterwards Emperor Balban). Of the six years which intervened between 658 A.H. and 664 A.H. (the date of assumption of sovereignty by Emperor Balban) there is no known historical work. The Tarikh Firuz Shahī of Ziau-d-dīn Barni only began from Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban’s reign. Emperor Balban reigned from 1265 to 1287 A.C.

Jalaluddin Masūd, Malik Janī Khiljī Khan, became Governor of Bengal in 656 A.H.

I do not find any detailed account of him given in the Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri.

Izzu-d-dīn Balban was Governor of Bengal in 657 A.H., in which year he was attacked by Taju-d-dīn Arsalan Khān Sanjar-i-Khwarizmi, who was subsequently captured or killed at Lakhnauti by Izzu-d-dīn. Hence Taju-d-dīn Arsalan Khān cannot count amongst Governors of Bengal (see Blochmann’s Contr. to Hist. and Geog. of Bengal, and Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri, Pers. text, p. 267).

Muhammad Arsalan Tātār Khān, son of Arsalan Khān Sanjar, had been for some time Governor of Bengal, when the Emperor Balban ascended the throne (664 A.H.) (See Tarikh Firuz Shahi, by Ziau-d-dīn Barni, Pers. text, pp. 53 and 66.) He was generous, liberal and brave. After a few years he was succeeded by Tughral, who proclaimed himself king, under the title of Sultān Mughisu-d-dīn.

This account differs slightly from Professor Blochmann’s conclusions derived from inscriptions and the evidence of coins, as set forth in his Contributions to the History and Geography of Bengal. Professor Blochmann holds that on the death of Muhammed Tātār Khān, which took place shortly after Balban’s accession, Sher Khān was appointed Imperial Governor of Lakhnauti; that Sher Khān was succeeded in the office by Amin Khān, whose Deputy or Naib was Tughral. Tughral heard of Balban’s illness, attacked and defeated Amin Khān, and proclaimed himself king of Bengal under the title of Sultān Mughisu-d-dīn (A.C. 1279). Balban recovered from his illness shortly after, invaded Bengal in person, defeated Tughral, at some place near Sunargaon, where Danuj Rai was the zemindar (Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, p. 87), and in 681 H. (A.C. 1282) before leaving Bengal conferred the throne of Bengal on his (the Emperor Balban’s) son, Bughra Khān, who assumed the title of Sultān Nasiru-d-dīn. Nāṣiru-d-dīn appears to have died in 691 H. (1292 A.C.), that is about five years after the death of his illustrious father Emperor Balban. For a full account of Tughral styled Sultān Mughisu-d-dīn, see Tabaqat-i-Naṣiri (Pers. text, p. 261), and also Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahī (Pers. text, pp. 81 to 94), by Ziau-d-dīn Barni. Before becoming Governor of Bengal, he held the following offices: Chashnigīr (Taster to a prince) under Shamsu-d-dīn Altamsh; Amir-ul Majlis or Lord Chamberlain under Emperor Ruknu-d-dīn, Superintendent of Elephants, next Superintendent of Stables under Empress Raziah, feudatory of Tabarhind under Sultān Alau-d-dīn, next feudatory of Kanauj and Governor of Oudh, and next Viceroy of Bengal. He invaded Jajnagar (Orissa), Oudh and Kamrup (Western Assam) successfully, and then proclaimed his independence. Tughral was active and energetic, bold and courageous, liberal and generous. It is worthy of note that in this connection, the author of Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi (p. 93), for the first time uses expressions like these, “Iqlīm-i-Lakhnauti,” “Iqlīm-i-Sunargaon,” “Arṣah-i-Bangalah,”— indicating that Tughral had considerably extended his Bengal Satrapy.

In Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, “Qutlugh Khān Shamsi,”

From the manner of description given here, the Jājnagar here referred to would seem not to be in Orissa, but some place in East Bengal (probably Tipperah). For an exhaustive and interesting discussion on “Jājnagar,” see Blochmann’s “Contributions to History and Geography of Bengal.”

In Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahī, “Danuj Rai,” (p. 87).

Probably the river Brahmaputra or Megna is meant. Sunargāon is situate on the banks of the Brahmaputra, 13 miles S.-E. of Dacca. For a contemporary and graphic description of Emperor Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban’s expedition to Bengal, see Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahī (pp. 85-94 Pers. text.)

In Ferishta, “Barbaq Barlas,” in Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahī “Barik Begtaras.”

In Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahī. (“Malik Muhammad Sherandāz,” p. 88).

Koel is a tehsil in Aligarh District.

From the description given, Tughral alias Sultān Mughisu-d-dīn would appear to have pitched his tent at the time on the western banks of the Brahmaputra not very far from Sunargaon. Or, one might imagine him at this point of time having shifted his tent further eastward to the western bank of the Megna, opposite perhaps to the old ferry of Manicknagar across the river, or somewhere close to the modern Bhoyrab Bazar ferry, seriously planning to cross over on boats from the Dacca side to the Tipperah tract (which has been identified here with Jājnagar), with the old and powerful Emperor of Delhī (Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban) shadowing him. This Jājnagar, therefore, in Bengal, is different from Jājnagar in Orissa.

These verses, with slight variations, have been borrowed very probably from Amir Khusrau, the poet-laureate of Emperor Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban.

In Tarikh Firuz Shāhī (p. 88.) Malik Barbak Bektars.

In Tarikh Firuz Shāhī (p. 88) Malik Muhammad Shirandaz.

From Tarikh Firuz Shahī (pp. 88, 90 and 91) Malik Muqqadar and Tughral-kush would seem to be two different individuals.

The author of Tarikh Firuz Shāhī remarks that on both sides of the principal bazaar of Lakhnautī that was more than one karoh long, scaffolds were set up, and men, women and children were hanged. Such cruelty, sorrowfully remarks Ziau-d-dīn Barni, had never before been perpetrated by Musalman sovereigns of Delhī. (See pp. 91-92 Tarikh Firuz Shāhī).

Bughra Khān, younger son of Emperor Balban, assumed the royal title of Sultān Nāṣiru-d-dīn at his elevation to the throne of Bengal. He was the first of a succession of Balbani Kings who ruled over Bengal, from 1282 A.C. to 1331 A.C. (or 681 A.H. to 731 A.H.) and had mostly their court at Sunargaon near Dacca. Nāṣiru-d-dīn Bughra Khan, son of Emperor Balban, reigned over Bengal from 681 H. to 691 (1282 A.C. to 1292 A.C.) and was succeeded by his son Ruknu-d-din who assumed the title of Sultān Kai-Kaus. From inscriptions found at Gangarampur and Khagol, near Lakhisarai, he appears to have been alive in 697 H. (A.C. 1297). Mr. Thomas has published coins of this King bearing the dates 691, 693, 694, 695 A.H. He appears to have been succeeded by his brother who reigned under the name of Shamsu-d-dīn Firuz Shāh. Firuz Shāh had several sons, namely, Bughra Khān, Nāṣiru-d-dīn, Ghīasu-d-dīn or Bahadur Khān, Qutlu Khān, and Hatim Khān. The third son, Ghiasu-d-dīn, made conquests in Eastern Bengal, established himself at Sunargaon near Dacca, and struck coins from 1311 A.C. under the name of Bahadur Shāh. The fifth son Hatim Khān was in 1309 and 1315 A.C. Governor of Oudh. Firuz Shāh died in 718 H. (1318 A.C.) Quarrels then broke out between the several sons of Firuz Shāh, who was succeeded by his eldest son who took the title of Shahabu-d-dīn Bughra Shāh who ruled at Lakhnauti in 1318-19. Soon after his accession, Bughra Shāh was defeated by his brother Bahadur Shāh who reigned at Sunargaon. Bughra Shāh and his brother Nāṣiru-d-dīn took refuge with Emperor Tughluk Shāh who in 1320 had mounted the throne of Delhī. Qutlu Khān, another brother, was killed by Bahadur Shāh who was now supreme King over Bengal and Behar, and held a magnificent Court at Sunargaon.

At the instigation of Bughra Shāh and Nāṣiru-d-dīn, the fugitives (says Ibn Batutah), Emperor Tughlak Shāh invaded Bengal. When the Imperial army left Delhī, Bahadur Shāh retīred to Sunargaon, whilst Nāṣiru-d-dīn joining the Emperor at Tirhut came with the latter to Lakhnautī, when the Emperor confirmed Nāṣiru-d-dīn as Governor of Lakhnautī. The Emperor sent his adopted son Tatar Khān, Governor of Zafarabad (near Jaunpur) with an army to operateagainst Sultān Bahadur Shāh, who was captured and sent to Delhī with a chain round his neck. At this time, also, two additional distinct Provinces in Bengal were constituted, viz., Sunargaon and Satgaon, each being placed under a Military Governor; whilst Behar was separated from Bengal. Sunargaon was placed under Tatar Khān.

With the accidental death of Emperor Tughlak Shāh and the accession of his successor Emperor Muhammad Shāh Tughlak, other changes took place in the administration of Bengal. The new Emperor released Bahadur Shāh, allowed him to return to Sunargaon, on condition that the Bengal coinage was to bear the joint names of Bahadur Shāh and the Emperor Muhammad Tughlak, and also that in the Khutbah the names of both were to be recited. Tatar Khān who was hitherto Military Governor of Sunargaon, received the title of Bahram Khān, and was stationed at Sunargaon at the Court of Bahadur Shāh, as a sort of Imperial Resident. Nāṣiru-d-dīn was continued as Subordinate Governor of Lakhuautī.

In 726 A.H. (1326 A.C.), Nāṣiru-d-dīn died, and Muhammad Shāh appointed Malik Bidar Khiljī as Governor of Lakhnautī with the title of Qadr Khān. Bahadur Shāh, the king, at Sunargaon, attempted soon after to throw off all outward signs of allegiance to the Emperor, who sent an army to Bahram’s assistance. Bahadur Shāh, the last Bengal Balbani sovereign, and the last royal representative of the house of Emperor Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban, was defeated and put to death about 731 A.H. or 1331 A.C. Bengal remained Imperialist till the death of Bahram Khān in 1338 A.C., when Fakhru-d-dīn successfully revolted, killed Qadr Khān and established the independence of Bengal. (See Blochmann’s contribution to History of Bengal, Thomas’ Initial coinage, Ibn-i-Batutah, Tarikh Firuz Shāhī, pp. 92, 181, 254, 450, 451, 461, 480).

The pieces of solemn advice given by Emperor Balban to his son Bughra Khān, at the time of former’s departure from Bengal, are set forth in detail in the Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī (pp. 95 to 106), and will repay perusal. They contain golden rules for the conduct of sovereigns, and indicate that this Musalmān Emperor cherished a noble and exalted ideal of kingly duties and responsibilities.

In Tarikh Firuz Shāhī (p. 107), “after three years.”

Sultān Muhammad, eldest son of Emperor Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban, was Imperial Viceroy of Multān Province or Vilāyet at this time. This Prince was brave, gallant and accomplished, and he fell gallantly fighting between Lahore and Dibalpur against the Mughul hordes under Tamar from Central Asia who were harrying at this time the North-Western frontier of India. Hence the Prince is styled “Khān-i-Shahid” or “Martyred Prince or Chief.” His death was a great shock to the aged Emperor. (See Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī, pp. 109-10). The Prince was a patron of learning, and to his court at Multān were attached the celebrated poets, Amir Khusrau and Amir Hasan, for whose biographical sketch, see Badaoni, Vol. 1, pp. 200-201.

Ziauddin Barni, author of Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī (p. 121) states that shortly before his death in 686 A.H. (1287 A.C.), the aged and venerable Emperor Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban summoned to his presence in his palace in Delhī, Malik-ul-Umara Fakhru-d-dīn Kotwal (or police commissioner) of Delhī, Khwajah Hussain Baṣri, the Vizier or Prime Minister, and some others, and instructed them to place Kai Khusrau, son of Sultān Muhammad, on the throne. After the Emperor’s death, however, the Kotwal and his party placed Kaiqubad, son of Sultān Nāṣiru-d-dīn Bughra Khān (King of Bengal, and second son of the Emperor) on the throne. The personnel of Sultān Muizu-d-dīn Kaiqubād’s administration consisted of (1) Malik-ul-Umara Kotwal of Delhī, (2) Nizamu-d-dīn, nephew of Malik-ul-Umara, who became Dadbig or Chief Justice, and subsequently Wazir or Prime Minister, (3) Malik Quamu-d-dīn who became Wakildar or Administrator-General. Emperor Kaiqubad, who was a boy of seventeen years, was addicted to pleasures, and spent most of his time in the charming pleasure-villa of Kilukhari, in the suburbs of Delhī. Nizamu-d-dīn the Wazir who now assumed the title of Nizamu-l-Mulk, set about devising means to destroy the house of Balban (see Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī, p. 132).

The text here is rather confused. In Ferishta, the rendering is as follows: “When Sultān Muizu-d-dīn Kaiqubād heard of the intention of his father (Sultān Nāṣiru-d-dīn Bughra Khān, King of Bengal) and of the latter’s arrival in Behar, he (Emperor Kaiqubād), too, arrayed his forces, and in the hottest part of the year reached the banks of the Ghagar river, and halted. And Sultān Nāṣiru-d-dīn, on hearing of the news, advanced from Behar, reached the banks of the river Sro, and halted.” The meeting between Sultān Nāsiru-d-dīn Bughra Khān and his son the Emperor Kaiqubad is immortalized in the pages of “Qiranu-s-Sadain” by Amir Khusrau, the celebrated poet of Delhī. The camp of the father was on the bank of the river Sro or Sarū or Sarju, the old river boundary-line between the Musalman Kingdom of Bengal (which included Behar in those days) and the Empire of Delhī, and the camp of the son was on the opposite banks of the Sro. Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī, p. 141. The Qiranu-s-Sadaīn fixes the meeting-place at Ajudheya on the banks of the Ghagar.

It is stated that on the day of departure, Sultān Naṣiru-d-dīn Bughra Khān exhorted his son, Emperor Kaiqubad, to attend to prayer and to observe the fast of Ramzan, taught him certain regulations and fixed rules of sovereignty, warned him against excesses in wine and neglect of State matters, rebuked him for killing Kai Khusrau and other noted Amirs and Malnks of Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban, and advised him to dismiss Nizamu-d-dīn alias Nizamul Mulk, the Wazir. (See Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shāhī, pp. 144 to 156).

See Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī, p. 173. According to other accounts Emperor Kaiqubad was poisoned at the instigation of the Amir-ul-Umara who was in league with Jallalu-d-dīn Khiljī. With him (Kaiqubad) ended the Balbani dynasty in Delhī, but, as will be observed in these pages, it lingered for a longer period in the Bengal Kingdom in the persons of the Balbani Kings of Bengal.

Sultān Jallalu-d-din Khiljī is said to have been descended from Qalej Khān, son-in-law of Changīz Khān. He was Governor of Samanah and held the office of State Secretary (Arzi Mamalik) in the Cabinet of Emperor Kaiqubad. Jallalu-d-din ascended the Delhī throne in 1290 A.C. or 689 A.H. and wíth him commenced the Khiljī dynasty which continued to reign over India till 1320 A.C. During his reign, Muhammadan conquests were extended into Southern India through the prowess of his nephew, Alan-d-dīn Khiljī. See Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi pp. 170-174, Badaoni, p. 167, vol. 1. Badaoni states that “ Qalij” and “Khilj” were different, and that “Khilj” was one of the children of Yafus, son of Noah.

Sultān Qutbu-d-dīn Khiljī was son of Sultān Alau-d-dīn Khiljī. See Tarīkh-ī-Firuz Shahi p. 408 and 381.

In respect of the weak rule in Bengal of Sultān Nasiru-d-dīn Bughra Shāh (son of Emperor Balban), Zīau-d-din Barni (p. 189) relates that Emperor Jalalu-d-dīn’s favourite mode of disposing of dacoits captured in the Delhī territory, was to send them in shiploads to Bengal, where they were let loose.

On the defeat of Khusran Khān, (Tarikh-i-Fīruz Shahi, pp. 420 and 421) the nobles placed Ghazī-ul-Mulk on the throne of Delhī. Ghazī-ul-Mulk then assumed the title of Ghiasu-d-dīn Tughlak Shāh. His father was a Turkish slave, named Malik, of Sultān Ghiasu-d-dīn Balban, and his mother was of a Punjab family. Brave, noble, and maguanimous, he was the founder of the Tughlak dynasty which reigned for ninety-four years at Delhī (1320-1414 A.C.). He founded the city of Tughlakabad, about 4 miles east of Delhī. He reigned from 1320 to 1324 A.C. In order to put down the assumption of entire independence by Bahadur Shāh at Sunargaon in Bengal, Ghiasu-d-dīn Tughlak marched to Sunargaon, fought a decisive engagement, took Bahadur Shāh a prisoner, and marched back with the latter towards Delhī, storming the fort of Tirhut, and leaving Naṣiru-d-dīn as Governor of Vilayet-i-Lakhnautī. Ghiasu-d-dīn divided Bengal into three provinces, namely (1) Vilayet-i-Lakhnautī, (2) Vilayet-i-Sātgāon. (3) Vilayet-i-Sunargāon, placing each under a distinct Governor, and placing a Viceroy (stationed at Sunargāon) over all the Governors. Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shāhī p. 451.

This Nāṣiru-d-dīn was a grandson of Sultān Nāṣiru-d-dīn Bughra Shāh, son of Emperor Balban. He was Governor of Lakhnautī, but had been ousted by his brother Bahadur Shāh, king of Bengal, who held his court at Sunargaon. This Nāṣiru-d-dīn and another brother Bughra Khān had taken refuge at the time with the Emperor of Delhī (Tughlak Shāh) who at their instigation invaded Bengal to chastise their brother, Bahadur Shāh (king of Bengal). The text, however, is misleading, and would incorrectly indicate that the Nāsiru-d-dīn here referred to is Sultān Nāṣiru-d-dīn Bughra Shāh, king of Beugal (son of Emperor Balban). See, however, Blochmann’s “Contributions to History and Geography of Bengal” and Tarikh-i-Fīruz Shahi, pp. 450-451.

This text is not quite accurate on all points. See note ante, regarding the fortunes of the Balbani dynasty in Bengal.

Ulagh Khān or Alagh Khān alias Fakhru-d-dīn Juna, nephew and son-in-law of Emperor Ghiasu-d-dīn Tughlak Shāh, on the death of the latter by the accidental fall of the roof of a newly erected pavilion, ascended the throne of Delhī under the title of Sultān Muhammad Shāh Tughlak in 725 A.H. An accomplished scholar, a general of the first order, a man of consummate ability, his eccentricity and visionary schemes marred his success as a sovereign. His great ambition was to extend his empire over the world, and to be a second Alexander. He fruitlessly threw away the pick of his splendid army for the invasion of Persia and the conquest of China. Though the fertility of his genius evolved and organised a revenue system, his financial eccentricity in establishing a fixed currency of copper coins completely disorganised it. He received an embassy from the Khalifa of Egypt, who sent out to him the investiture of Royalty. In his reign a severe famine broke out in Delhi, and in consequence there was a general exodus of its population to Bengal. He restored Bahadur Shāh to the kingdom ofSunargaon on certain conditions, but subsequently dethroned him. In his reign, Bengal became independent under Fakhru-d-din. (See Tarikh-i-Firuz Shāhī, pp. 428, 452, 457 to 461, 473, 475, 478, 480, 492.)