« السابقةمتابعة »
We are not concerned, however, with the genuineness of Hasan's claim, for this is a question which cannot now be decided. It is certain that he put forward the claim and that his title “Bahman Shāh ’’ was an embodiment of its assertion. The author of the Burhāni-Ma'āsīr says (King, p. 1) “in consequence of his descent the king was known as Bahman,” and subsequently (King, p. 17) refers to him as “the cream of the race of Bahman.” I believe that I have shewn that the epithet “Bahmani’’ applied to the great dynasty of the Dakan has no connection with the castename “Brahman,” but is derived from the old Persian name Bahmani which was borne, as a title, by the founder of the dynasty.
(2) THE OFFSPRING of ‘ALĀ’U-D-DIN BAHMAN SHAH.
According to the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsir! Bahman Shāh had four sons of whom three, Muhammad the eldest, Mahmūd” and Ahmad * are named. Firishta does not give the number of the sons, but names three, Muhammad 4 the eldest, Dā'ūd," who afterwards ascended the throne as the fourth king of the line, and Mahmūd" the youngest. Khāfi Khān, in the third volume of the Muntakhabu-l-Lubāb, says that Bahman Shāh had four sons, but he mentions three only. Muhammad the eldest, Mahmūd and Dā'ūd. No list of Bahman Shāh's sons is given in the Tabaqāt-i-Akbari, and Muhammad is mentioned as his son, without being distinguished as the eldest. 7 Elsewhere, * however, Muhammad Shāh, the fifth king of the dynasty is referred to as “the son of Mahmūd, the son of Hasan Shāh ’” (sul. Bahman Shāh). It is clear, from the general consensus of authorities, that Muhammad, Bahman Shāh's successor, was his eldest son, and it is also clear that Bahman Shāh had a son named Mahmüd. The statements of the authors of the Burhan-i-Ma'āsīr and the Muntakhabu-lLubāb as to the number of his sons may be accepted as correct, in spite of the fact that no one authority names more than three sons. We have, therefore, two sons to account for, viz., Ahmad, mentioned by the authors of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsir, the Tazkiratu-l-Mulúk,9 and Dā'ūd, mentioned by Firishta and Khāfi Khān. There seems to be little doubt that Bahman Shāh had a son named Ahmad, but this question will be considered in connection with that of the parentage of the eighth and ninth Sultāns of the dynasty. I cannot, however, find any sufficient reason for believing that Ahmad was the youngest son, as stated by Major King in the genealogical table given by him on p. xxxiv. of his book. The author whom he translates nowhere says that Ahmad was the youngest son, and Firishta, who, although not entirely trustworthy in questions of genealogy, should be followed when he cannot be proved to be wrong, distinctly says that Mahmūd was the youngest. So far, therefore, we havé Muhammad the eldest, and Mahmūd the youngest, with Ahmad somewhere between them. Authorities differ as to the parentage of Dā'ūd. Both Firishta and Khāfi Khān make him a son of Bahman Shāh, the only difference between them being that the former places the sons in the order—(1) Muhammad, (2) Dā'ūd, (3) Mahmūd; while the latter places Muhmüd before Dā'ūd, without saying, however, that Mahmüd was the elder. In the Tabaqāt-i-Akbari 1 Dā'ūd is described as the first cousin of Mujāhid Shāh, son of Muhammad Shāh I, according to which statement he would be a grandson and not a son of Bahman Shāh. The author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşīr says in one place” that Dā'ūd was “a younger brother, or according to one history, a cousin of Mujāhid,” but afterwards & says, “according to the most authentic accounts, Sultān Dā'ūd Shāh was son of Mahmūd Khān, son of Sultān ‘Alā'u-d-din' Hasan Shāh Bahmani (sul. Bahman Shāh). Although Firishta is generally an untrustworthy genealogist his account of Dā'ūd’s parentage must be preferred to that of other authorities. It is possible that the word cos (“son”) in Nizāmu-'d-din Ahmad's description of him as the first cousin (fe col) of Mujāhid is an interpolation. The statement in the Burhān-i- Ma'asir that Dā'ūd was the son of Mahmūd Khān, the son of Båhman Shāh, cannot be accepted. Firishta, who is not contradicted on this point, makes Mahmūd, as has been said, the youngest son of Bahman Shāh. He says that at the time of Bahman Shāh's death (A.H. 759) Mahmūd was a schoolboy, reading Sa‘di's Būstān. He was probably, therefore, thirteen or fourteen years of age at that time, and can hardly have been the father of Dā'ūd, who held an important command in the expedition against the Rāya of Vijayanagar in Mujāhid’s reign (A.H. 776–779). For these reasons I am inclined to complete the tale of Bahman Shāh's four sons by adding to them Dā'ūd, and this assumption, supported by Firishta's authority, whatever that may be worth, not only fills the gap left by the authors of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşīr and the Tabaqāt-i-Akbari, but accounts satisfactorily for Dā'ūd's anger when he was rebuked by Mujāhid for neglect of his military duty. Dā'ūd might have borne a rebuke from a brother or a cousin older than himself who was also his king, but a rebuke from a nephew would have been harder to bear, and the assumption that Dā'ūd was Mujāhid's uncle explains his resentment, the result of which was the assassination of Mujāhid and the accession of Dā'ūd. Bahman Shāh's four sons, therefore, were Muhammad, Dā'ūd, Ahmad and Mahmūd. The only question concerning them which cannot be settled is the order in which Dā'ūd and Ahmad came.
1 King, p. 22. & Firishta, i. 627. T King, p. 408. ** Ibid, p. 31. * Ibid, i. 533, 573. * Tabaqāt-i-Akbari, p. 410. * Ibid, p. 36. * Ibid, i. 533. * King, p. 47.
} (3) THE OFFSPRING OF MUHAMMAD I.
Muhammad was succeeded by his son Mujahid. Firishta, Nizāmud-din Ahmad, and Khāfi Khan mention no other son, but the author of the Burhān-i-Masirl says that Muhammad had a younger son, Fath Khān. The statement may be accepted as correct, but Fath Khān is not again heard of, and is therefore unimportant. Mujāhid was assassinated after a reign of little more than a year, and his uncle and successor, Dā'ūd, was assassinated after a reign of little more than a month. The former left no issue. Dā'ūd, according to Firishta, left a son, Muhammad Sanjar, who was blinded.
. (4) NASIRU-D-DIN MUHAMMAD SHAH II.
Muhammad Shāh II is described both by Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad and by the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsīr as the son of Mahmūd Khān, the son of 'Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh. The latter authority also describes him, consistently but wrongly, as the younger brother of Da'id. Firishta, followed, of course, by Khāfī Khān, falls into a strange error regarding the name and the identity of this king, and asserts that his name was Mahmūd and not Muhammad and that he was the son of Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh. He is very positive on this point, as the following extract? will show :
“The author of the Futuku-s-Salātān has made a mistake regarding the name of this king, saying that his name was Sultān Muhammad Shāh, and mentioning him as Muhammad Shāh in all his poems; and fikewise some of the historians of Gujarāb and Dihli, both ancient and modern, not having inquired into events in the Dakan as they actually came to pass, have made mistakes both in the names of the Bahmani kings and in many of the stories which they relate concerning them, and all of them have wielded untrustworthy pens and have failed to verify their information.”
Firishta, in spite of his assurance, was unquestionably wrong. In the first place he stands alone, his copyist Khāfī Khān excepted, in describing the fifth Bahmani King as Mahmūd. All other authorities call him Muhammad. In the second place he is contradicted by an inscription, dated A.H. 892, on the Muhammadi gate of the fortress of Narnāla in Berar, in which Shahābu-d-din Mahmūd Shāh, the fourteenth king of the Bahmani dynasty is described as “the son of Sultan Muhammad, the son of Sultân Humāyūn, the son of Sultân Ahmad, the son of Sultān Muhammad.” The inscription is not necessarily a better authority than . Firishta, and the account of Shahābu-d-din Mahmūd's descent which it gives is unquestionably wrong, but the Sultān Muhammad to whom the descent is traced was evidently the fifth king of the Bahmani dynasty, so that in this respect the inscription corroborates the mass of evidence against Firishta. Finally we have the evidence of the coins. All the known coins of the fifth king of the Bahmani dynasty bear the name Muhammad. None bears the name Mahmūd. This fact alone is sufficient to decide the question. Even Firishta would have hesitated to assert that the officials of the mint did not know the name of the king whom they served. It is, however, worth while to consider a possible source of Firishta's error. He may have seen this Sultân mentioned in some inscription, Sanad, or other authentic document by his name Nāsiru-d-din followed by his father's name, thus:—Nāsiru-d-dān-i-Mahmūd, the izāfat, which would be omitted in Persian script, denoting the patronymic. Similar errors in nomenclature have occurred. Thus, the Arab conqueror of Sindh, Muhammad-i-Qāsim or Muhammad bin Qāsim, has been styled by historians who should have known better, “Muhammad Qāsim,” as though Qāsim were his own name instead of being his father's.
1 King, p. 28. * Firishta, i. 576.
(5) THE OFFSPRING OF MUHAMMAD II.
The fifth king had two sons. Sultan Ghiyāsu-d-din Muhammad, or Bahman' and Sultân Shamsu-d-din Dā'ūd. The former succeeded him at the age of 17, according to Firishta,” or 12 according to the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsār,” and was deposed and blinded after a reign of little more than a month. His younger brother Shamsud-din was then placed on the throne, at the age of 15, according to Firishta, * or 6, according to the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'asir. 5 His reign lasted, according to Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad" and Firishta 7 fifty-seven days, and according to the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'asir 8 five months and seven days. The discrepancy may be due to a misreading.
1 King, p. 34. 4 Firishta, i. 583. 7 Firishta, i. 586, * Frishta, i. 581. 6 King, p. 35. 8 King, p. 36. * King, p. 34. * Tabaqāt-i-Akbari, 411. ©
(6) THE PARENTAGE OF FIRUZ SHAH AND AHMAD SHåH, THE EIGHTH t AND NINTH KINGs.
Firishta says' that Mahmūd Shāh (Dā'ūd is evidently meant) had three sons: (1) Muhammad Sanjar, who was blinded; (2) Firüz Khan; and (3) Ahmad Khān; and that the uncle of these boys, Muhammad Shāh II (whom Firishta calls Mahmūd) before he had sons of his own, brought up Firüz and Ahmad as his sons, married them to two of his daughters, and led Firüz to believe that he would be his heir, but that after the birth of his own sons he made Firüz and Ahmad swear allegiance to Ghiyāsu-d-din. This plausible story accounts for Firüz Khān's ambition, but for various reasons it cannot be accepted as true. In the first place the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsir, who is a better authority than Firishta in genealogical questions, makes * Firüz and Ahmad the sons of Ahmad Khān, the son of ‘Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh, and he is supported * by the author of the Tazkiratu-l-Mulúk. Firishta does not explain why the two younger sons of Dā'ūd should have been brought up as princes in the line of succession to the throne when it was found necessary to blind their eldest brother, Muhammad Sanjar. There is good evidence, of a negative nature, in favour of the statements of the authors of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsīr and the Tazkiratül-Mulúk. Among Oriental rulers the pride of descent is more exacting than it is in the West, and descent from those who are merely members of a royal house is less highly regarded than a descent which can be traced through an unbroken line of actual wearers of the crown. This pride finds its expression in the common formula whl-' cool ejshl-Ji cylal-J col and, when a king can establish such a line of descent, he rarely fails to mention his father's name on his coins and in his inscriptions. So far as I know, neither Firüz Shāh nor Ahmad Shāh ever mentions his father's name in such inscriptions. Ahmad Shāh's name appears in the inscriptions in his fine tomb at Bidar, but his father's does not. If the brothers had been sons of Dā'ūd, a king who actually reigned, they would certainly have mentioned the fact, either on their coins or in their inscriptions. As they have not done so it may be safely held, with the authors of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsīr and the Tazkirutus-Salātīn, that Firüz and Ahmad were the sons of Ahmad Khan, the son of ‘Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh.
I have referred above to an exceptional coin. This is the coin which I have already mentioned in the account of the founder of the Bahmani dynasty. The reverse bears the inscription, “Ahmad Shāh bin Ahmad Shāh bin Bahman Shāh,” but no date. I was inclined to
1 Firishta, i. 583, 3 King, pp. 36, 49. * King, p. 47.