« 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 be put forward the claim and that his title " Bahman Shāh' was an embodiment of its assertion. The author of the Burhani-Ma'āşir 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 caste
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'D-D-DIN BAHMAN SHĀH.
According to the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşir 1 Bahman Shāh had four sons of whom three, Muhammad the eldest, Maḥmüds and Ahmad 8 are named. Firishta does not give the number of the sons, but names three, Muḥammad 4 the eldest, Dā’ūd, 5 who afterwards ascended the throne as the fourth king of the line, and Mahmud & 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'īd. No list of Bahman Shāh's Bons is given in the Tabaqā t-i-Akbari, and Muḥammad is mentioned as his son, without being distinguished as the eldest.7 Elsewhere, however, Muḥammad Shāh, the fifth king of the dynasty is referred
“the son of Mahmūd, the son of Hasan Shāh” (sul. Bahman Shāb). It is clear, from the general consensus of authorities, that Muḥammad, Bahman Shāh's successor, was his eldest son, and it is also clear that Bahman Shāh had a son named Mahmūd. The statements of the authors of the Burhan-z-Ma'āsir and the Muntakhabu-l. Lubāb 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., Aḥmad, mentioned by the authors of the Burhān-i-Ma'āsir, the Tazkiratu-l-Muluk, and Dā'üd, mentioned by Firishta and Khāfi Khān. There seems to be little doubt that Bahman Shāh had a son named Aḥmad, 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 Aḥmad 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 Aḥmad 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 Mahmûd was the youngest. So far, therefore, we have Muḥammad the eldest, and Mahmūd the youngest, with Ahmad somewhere between them.
1 King, p. 22.
6 Firishta, i. 527.
7 King, p. 408.
Tabaqāt-i-Akbari, p. 410. 9 King, p. 47.
Authorities differ as to the parentage of Dā’ūd. Both Firishta and Khāfi Khān make him a son of Babman Shāh, the only difference between them being that the former places the sons in the order-(1) Muḥammad, (2) Dā’ūd, (3) Maḥmūd; while the latter places Muḥmūd before Dā'ūd, without saying, however, that Mahmūd was the elder. In the subaqāt-i-Akbari 1 Dā’ūd is described as the first cousin of Mujāhid Shāh, son of Muḥammad 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'āsir says in one place that Dā’ūd was "a younger brother, or according to one history, a cousin of Mujāhid," but afterwards 3 says, “ according to the most authentic accounts, Sultan Dā’ūd Shāh was son of Mahmūd Khān, son of Sultan ‘Alā'a-d-din' Hasan Shāh Bahmani (sul. Bahman Shāh). Although Firishta is generally an untrustworthy genealogist his account of Dāūd's parentage must be preferred to that of other authorities. It is possible that the word op ("sson") in Nizāmu-'d-din Ahmad's description of him as the first cousin (pus way) of Mujāhid is an interpolation. The statement in the Burhān-:- Ma'āsir that Dā’ūd was the son of Mahmud Khān, the son of Bāhman Shāh, cannot be accepted. Firishta, who is not contradicted on this point, makes Mahmud, as has been said, the youngest son of Bahman Shāh. He says that at the time of Bahman Shāh's death (A.H. 759) Maḥmūd 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 Majāhid'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 Da'ūd, and this assumption, supported by Firişhta's authority, whatever that
may be worth, not only fills the gap left by the authors of the Burhan-j-Ma'āşir and the Tabaqāt-i-Akbarī, but accounts satisfactorily for Dā’ād's anger when he was rebuked by Mujābid for neglect of his military duty. Da'ud 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, Aḥmad and Maḥmūd. The only question concerning them which cannot be settled is the order in which Dā'üd and Aḥmad came.
1 King, p. 410.
& King, p. 29.
S King, p. 31.
(3) THE OFFSPRING OF MUŅAMMAD I. Muḥammad was succeeded by his son Mujahid. Firishta, Nizāmud-din Aḥmad, and Khāfi Khan mention no other son, but the author of the Burhān-i-Mașir 1 says that Muḥammad 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. Dāūd, according to Firishta, left a son, Muḥammad Sanjar, who was blinded.
(4) NĀŞIRU-D-DIN MOHAMMAD SÆĀH II. Muḥammad Shāh II is described both by Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad and by the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşir as the son of Maḥmüd Khān, the son of 'Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh. The latter authority also describes him, consistently hut wrongly, as the younger brother of Da'ad. Firishta, followed, of course, by Khāfi Khān, falls into a strange error regarding the name and the identity of this king, and asserts that his name was Mahmūd and not Muḥammad 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 Futūḥu-s-Salāțin has made a mistake regarding the name of this king, saying that his name was Sulţān Muḥammad Shāh, and mentioning him as Muhammad Shāh in all his poems; and likewise some of the historians of Gujarăt and Dihlī, both ancient and modern, not having inquired into events in the Dakan as they actually came to pass, bave made mistakes both in the names of the Bahmanī 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 Khāfi Kbān excepted, in describing the fifth Bahmani King as Mahmūd. All other authorities
1 King, p. 28.
% Firishta, i. 576.
call bim Muḥammad. In the second place he is contradicted by an
He may have seen this Sultān mentioned in some inscription, sanad, or other authentic document by his name Nāşiru-d-din followed by his father's name, thus:-Nāşiru-d-din-i-Mahmūd, the işāfat, 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.
(5) THE OFFSPRING OF MUŅAMMAD II. The fifth king had two sons. Sultan Ghiyāşu-d-din Muḥammad, or Bahman 1 and Sultān Shamsu-d-din Dā’ūd. The former succeeded him at the age of 17, according to Firişhta, or 12 according to the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşir, 3 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--Ma'āşir. 6 His reign lasted, according to Nizāmu-d-din Ahmad 6 and Firishta 7 fifty-seven days, and according to the author of the Burhan-z-Ma'āşir 8 five months and seven days. The discrepancy may be due to a misreading.
1 King, p. 34.
Frishta, i, 581. 3 King, p. 34.
4 Firishta, i, 583.
7 Firishta, i, 586. 8 King, p. 36.
(6) The PARENTAGE OF FIRUZ SHAH AND AĦMAD SHAH, THE EIGHT:
AND NINTH KINGS.
Firishta says that Mahmud Shāh (Dā'üd is evidently meant) had three sons: (1) Muhammad Sanjar, who was blinded ; (2) Firüz Khan; and (3) Aḥmad Khān; and that the uncle of these boys, Muhammad Shāb II (whom Firishta calls Maḥmūd) before he had sons of his own, brought up Firüz and Aḥmad as his sons, married them to two of his daughters, and led Firūz to believe that he would be his heir, but that after the birth of his own sons he made Firüz and Aḥmad swear allegiance to Ghiyāsa-d-din. This plausible story accounts for Firūz Khān's ambition, but for various reasons it cannot be accepted as true. In the first place the author of the Burhān-i-Ma'āşir, who is a better authority than Firishta in genealogical qaestions, makes & Firūz and Ahmad the sons of Ahmad Khān, the son of 'Alā'u-d-din Bahman Shāh, and he is supported 3 by the author of the Tazkiratu-l-Mulūk. 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 Burhan-z-Ma'āşir and the Tazkiratul-Mulūk. 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
السلطان ابن السلطان pride finds its expression in the common formula
W' bhuill come 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 Firūz Shāh nor Ahmad Shāh ever mentions his father's name in such inscriptions. Aḥmad 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-z-Ma'āşir and the Tazkirutus-Salātin, that Firūz and Aḥmad 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, “Aḥmad Shāh bin Ahmad Shāh bin Bahman Shāb," but no date. I was inclined to
1 Firishta, i. 583,
% King, pp. 36, 49.
3 King, p. 47.