« السابقةمتابعة »
Yabum Silema, wife of Kya-ring, Thag-
JOU F&N AL
ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL,
Part I.-HISTORY, LITERATURE, &c.
Some Notes on the Bahmani Dynasty.”—By MAJOR W. HAig.
The legends commonly related by historians regarding the origin of the cognomen Bahmani connect it with the name of the priestly caste of the Hindus. The story preferred by Firishta and repeated by Khāfī Khān in the third volume of the Muntakhabu-l-Lubab is that Hasan, the founder of the dynasty, was, in his youth, a servant of Kānkü, Gângă, or Gangú, a Brahman astrologer who enjoyed the confidence of Muhammad-bin Tughlaq before he ascended the throne. One day, as he was ploughing some waste land for the Brahman, his plough stuck fast. On digging it out of the ground he found that it had
1 In this article the editions referred to are the following:
Firishta—Bombay edition of 1832.
Badāoni—Bibliotheca Indica edition.
Burhān-i-Ma'āgir and Takirate-look—translation by Major J. S. King, Luzac & Co., 1900.
Muntakhabu-l-Lubāb, Wol. III.-MS. in writer's possession.
Tabaqāt-i-Akbari—Newal Kishor Press edition.
caught in a chain and that to the chain was attached a chest containing ashrafis and uncoined gold, which he took straight to his master. The Brahman was so pleased with Hasan's honesty that he brought him to the notice of the prince, Muhammad-bin Tughlaq, by whose influence he obtained an appointment in the imperial service. Shortly after this the Brahman informed Hasan that he had cast his horoscope, and foretold that he would rise to the highest dignity. He asked him to promise that he would, when this prophecy should be fulfilled, take the name of his original benefactor as part of his title, and Hasan made the required promise and, when the time came, fulfilled it by styling himself, as king, “Hasan Kånkū-i-Bahmani.” In corroboration of this story Firishta records (i. 527) that Hasan, after being proclaimed king of the Dakan, made Känkü the Brahman the controller of the finances of his kingdom, and that he was the first Muhammadan ruler to employ a Brahman in so high a post. The only authority which we have for this story is that of Firishta, for Khāfi Khān, being admittedly little more than a copyist so far as the affairs of the Dakan are concerned, cannot be accounted an authority. The author of the Tabaqāt-i-Akbarā, the Burhān-i-Ma'āsir, and the Tazkiratu-l-Mulúk relate other legends, all more or less improbable, but do not commit themselves to Firishta's account of Hasan's servitude in the house of a Hindu. The predictions of his greatness are attributed variously to one Gangú, a Brahman, not said to be his master, Shaikh Nizāmu-d-din Auliyā of Dibli, and Shaikh Muhammad Sirâj-iJunaidi, in whose service he is said to have held some post. The titles of Hasan, as king of the Dakan, are variously given by historians as follows:–In Firishta's history (i. 525), ‘Alā'u-d-din Hasan Kånkū-i-Bahmani, by Khāfi Khān in the third volume of the Muntakhabu-l-Lubāb, ‘Alā'u-d-din Kånkū-i-Bahmani, curf Hasan, by Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad in the Tabaqāt-i-Akbarā, ‘Ala’u-d-din Hasan Shāh, by ‘Ali-bin ‘Azāzi-'llāh Tabatabá in the Burhān-i-Ma'āsir, ‘Alā'u-d-din Hasan Shāh Gangū-i-Bahmanī, and ‘Alā'u-d-din Hasan Shāh al Vali-ulBahmani, by the author of the Tazkiratu-l-Mülük, ‘Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh, and by Badāoni in the Muntakhabu-t-Tawārīkh (i. 231) “the Sultân who is known as Hasan Kånkü and at last obtained the Kingdom of the Dakan under the title of ‘Ala’u-d-din Bahman Shāh.” The title given by Badāoni and the author of the Tazkiratu-lMulúk is correct. Hasan did not add to his title the epithet Bahmani, but assumed the name of Bahman. There is in the fort of Gulbarga a contemporary inscription, bearing the date A.H. 754 (A.D. 1353) in which his titles are given as “‘Alā'u-d-dunyà wa’d-din Abū-'l-Muzaffar Bahman Shāh.” The names Hasan and Kānkü, or Gangú, and the epithet Bahmani, which is used on the coins of his successors and is correctly applied to them only, are omitted. The inscription, which was cut while Bahman Shāh was still alive and reigning, and was placed over a mosque in his capital, is far better evidence of the style under which he reigned than any statements of historians. Other evidence, however, exists. I have a copper coin which bears the inscription “Ahmad Shāh bin Ahmad Shāh bin Bahman Shāh.” This inscription needs some explanation—a question which will be considered hereafter—but there is no doubt that the words “Bahman Shāh ’’ refer to the founder of the Bahmani dynasty. There is also the Bahman-nāma, a versified history of the Bahmani kings, the authorship of which is uncertain, but which is often quoted by Firishta. The title of this history cannot refer to the epithet Bahmani, but can and evidently does refer to the name Bahman. * The question of the title under which the founder of the Bahman dynasty assumed the sovereignty of the Dakan is important as an indication of the derivation of the name by which that dynasty is known. It is conceivable that a Muhammadan king might have distinguished himself, from gratitude to a Brahman benefactor, by the epithet Bahmanī, even though that epithet is never found in its uncorrupted form Brahmani, but no Muhammadan king would have styled himself “King Brahman.” The derivation of the title Bahman Shāh must, therefore, be sought in Hasan's claim to descend from the Săsânidise. His pedigree, as given by Firishta, is as follows:—'Alā'u-d-din Hasan, the son of Kaikāās, the son of Muhammad, the son of ‘Ali, the son of Hasan, the son of Sahām, the son of Simiin, the son of Salām, the son of Ibrāhim, the son of Nasir, the son of Munsăr, the son of Rustam, the son of Kaiqubăd, the son of Miniichihr, the son of Nāmdār, the son of Isfandiyār, the son of Kaiyūmars, the son of Khurshid, the son of Sa'sa, the son of Faghfür, the son of Farrukh, the son of Shahryār, the son of Amir, the son of Suhaid, the son of Malik Dā'ūd, the son of Hüshang, the son of Nik Kardār, the son of Firiz Bakht, the son of Nüh, the son of Sāni', who was descended from Bahrām-i-gūr the Sāmāni, who was descended from Bahman the son of Isfandiyār. This pedigree is varied as follows by the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsir:— ‘Alā'u-d-dunyà wa-'d-din Hasan Bahman Shāh, son of Kaikāās Nsuhammad, son of ‘Ali, son of Hasan, son of Bahtām, son of Simiin, son of Salām, son of Nüh, son of Ibrāhim, son of Nasir, son of Mansir, son of Nüh, son of Sāni', son of Bahrām, son of Shāhrin, son of Sãd, son of Nüsin, son of Dāvād, son of Bahrām-i-gūr. Both historians express some doubts as to the authenticity of the pedigrees which they give, and there can be little doubt that both pedigrees are fictitious.