[THE Makhzan-i Afghání and the Táríkh-i Khán-Jahán Lodí are frequently mentioned and referred to as separate works, but they are essentially one and the same. The Táríkh contains, in addition, a memoir of Khán-Jahán Lodí,* from which the book takes it name, and it also gives a meagre history of the life of Jahángír; but in other respects it may be considered as only a revised version of the Makhzan. It is fuller than the latter in some parts, especially in the lives of the saints, but still the notes in the following Extracts will show that, although it is generally better, it is occasionally inferior to the Makhzan.

The author of the work was Ni'amatu-lla, who held the office of wáki'-nawís or historiographer at the Court of Jahángír; and he tells us that his father, Khwája Habíbu-lla, of Hirát, passed thirty-five years in the service of Akbar. But Ni'amatu-lla, though he had the chief hand in the work, was assisted or perhaps even directed by Haibat Khán, of Sámána. Ni'amatu-lla, after stating in the preface to the Makhzan, that he under­took the work in the year 1018, “at the command of Nawáb Khán-Jahán Lodí,” goes on to say that, “supported by the amiable kindness of Haibat Khán bin Salím Khán of Sámána, one of Khán-Jahán's attendants, who collected and arranged the scattered and confused genealogy of the Afgháns,” he wrote the “history in accordance with the labours and researches of the said Haibat Khán.” At the end of the MS. of the Táríkh-i Khán-Jahán Lodí, Ni'amatu-lla informs us that he finished the work at the city of Burhánpúr, and a few lines later it is stated that “there remain some words to be added on the genealogy of the most humble and most abject of slaves, Haibat Khán, who is occupied in writing and verifying this work.” The pedigree and history of his family are then related at some length. The terms of humility accompanying the name indicate that they were written by Haibat Khán himself. The authorship of the work is thus distinctly asserted both by Ni'amatu-lla and Haibat Khán; and strange to say, there has appeared to be yet another claimant. At the end of the second or Historical part of the Makhzan, there is found in the various MSS. the following passage, which the Editor of this work translates afresh, as Dorn's version is not satisfactory: “The original author of this Táríkh-i Sher Sháhí is 'Abbás Sarwání.* But as this work is deficient in some parti­culars, such as the affairs of Báz Bahádur, the memoirs of the Kiránís and Lohánís, and in some other matters, the history was incomplete. So in these days the humble servant Ibráhím Batní has made extracts from the Táríkh-i Nizámí, which also con­tains the history of Sher Sháh and Islám Sháh, and he has selected sundry matters from the Makhzan-i Afghání, written by Ni'amatu-lla, and having introduced them into this history, has made it complete.” These words are evidently applicable to some amended version of the Táríkh-i Sher Sháhí, not, as Dorn supposed, to the Makhzan-i Afghání; for the most bare-faced plagiarist and book-maker would hardly assert that he had improved and completed a work by adding to it selections from its own pages. It is curious to find such an entry in all the known MSS. of the Makhzan; for the only way of accounting for it is by supposing that it was inserted by mistake in the Makhzan, instead of the work for which it was intended; and if this be so, all the known MSS. of the work must have been derived from the copy in which the false entry was made.

The work begins with Adam, and professes to trace the origin of the Afgháns; but says Sir H. Elliot, “Nothing can be more meagre than the whole of the introductory book about the settlement of the Afgháns in Ghor. It is nothing but a rifacciamento of the childish Muhammadan stories of the Creation and of the prophets, especially Israel and Saul, all of which, as well as the early Muhammadan history, is taken from the commonest sources, without a single independent statement to encourage the least notion of correctness, research, novelty or probability. The Táríkh-i Khán-Jahán Lodí is nearly verbatim the same, and offers no differences of the least consequence. As a history of the early days of the Afgháns, it is utterly untrust­worthy, and should by no means be considered as the basis of the annals of a nation of which we remain as ignorant as if the work had never been written.” The following Extracts are taken from the second or Historical part of the work. The third part con­tains memoirs of sixty-eight Afghán saints.

The second book is valuable as the work of one who lived near the times of which he writes, and had a special interest in the subject. The work was finished in the year 1021 H. (1612 A.D.). Dorn observes, “Ni'amatu-lla was contemporary with Firishta, and commenced the history of the Afgháns in the same year when Firishta finished his work; but he is nowhere mentioned. The identity of the sources they used in compiling their respec­tive works is evident, from the extreme, often verbal coincidence of the style and thread of the history of the reigns of the Lodí race and the family of Sher Sháh.

The following is Sir H. Elliot's analysis of the MS:—“In the history of Sher Sháh the Táríkh-i Khán-Jahán Lodí is of about the same length as the Makhzan-i Afghání. The only additions are two long eulogies of Khawás Khán and Hájí Khán, and some of the regulations of Sher Sháh, which are added at the end of the reign. It follows the same order as the Makhzan, but varies from it considerably, and is altogether inferior. In this reign he quotes the Táríkh-i Sher Sháhí, Táríkh-i Nizámí, Ma'dan-i Akbar, and Akbar-náma, and appears to be in doubt as to which should be followed, for he is con­tradictory in some parts. The history of Islám Sháh follows, or exactly resembles, Dáúdí, and is not in the least like the Makhzan. The reign of 'Adalí is identically the same as the Makhzan; so are the notices of Shujáwal, Báz Bahádur, and Táj and 'Imád Kirání. On the subsequent periods of Afghán dominion in the East the history is brought lower down, and gives an account of Dáúd of Bengal, and a full history of the proceedings to the year 1021. The account of the saints does not occupy quite the same position. It is pretty nearly verbatim the same; but some lives differ, as Khwája Yahya Kábú, which is longer. While some of the Makhzan has been omitted, other matter equally absurd and childish has been introduced. Almost all the additions given by Dorn, from Dr. Lees' copy, in his notes, are to be found in my copy, and show that the two are identical. Both contain the life of Jahángír.

“The Makhzan-i Afghání has been well and faithfully translated by Dorn; and in my translations I have almost copied verbatim from him.”

The author mentions in his Preface the following authors who “have written books lately on the history of Sultán Bahlol Lodí,” viz. Khwája Nizámu-d dín Ahmad, in the Táríkh-i Nizámí; Shaikh 'Abbás Sarwání, in the Táríkh-i Sher Sháhí; Mauláná Mushtákí, in his Táríkh (called the Wáki'át-i Mush-tákí ); Mauláná Mahmúd bin Ibráhím Kálwání, in the history of Sultán Ibráhím, and named Ibráhím Sháhí.

The Extracts relating to the reign of Sultán Bahlol were translated by “Ensign” Charles F. Mackenzie; the others are from the pen of Sir H. M. Elliot himself.

These works, relating to the Afghán dynasties, come a little out of their chronological order; but it was not desirable to post­pone them to the reign of Akbar for the mere sake of maintaining the chronological sequence of the authors.]

It is narrated by the author of the Táríkh-í Ibráhím Sháhí, and by the historian Nizámí, that Malik Bahlol Lodí was the nephew of Sultán Sháh Lodí, who bore the title of Islám Khán during the time of Sultán Mubárak Sháh and Saiyid Khizr Khán, and was one of the grandees of that period. He held the pargana of Sirhind in jágír, and governed the neighbouring dis­tricts. [Malik Bahlol, son of Malik Kálá, was his full nephew, and] when he perceived that his nephew possessed discernment and good sense, he treated him as his son, and constituted him his successor [and caused his own turban to be bound on his nephew's head.]* After the decease of Islám Khán, Bahlol became governor of Sirhind, and established his authority firmly. Kutb Khán, the son of Islám Khán, declining to acknowledge the authority of Bahlol, went to Sultán Muhammad, who was then King of Dehlí, and complained against Malik Bahlol. In consequence of his representations, Hisám Khán, who was called Hájí Shudaní, one of the dependents of the Saiyid dynasty of Dehlí, who had attained the rank of a noble, was despatched by Sultán Muhammad with a numerous army against Malik Bahlol.* Both parties met near the village of Karra, in the pargana of Khizrábád, and a fierce battle took place. Hisám Khán, being defeated, retreated to Dehlí, whilst Malik Bahlol's power and authority were greatly increased.