________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[Vol. XXIV.
This differs from the genealogy given by the Muslim historians) and also accepted by the authors of the Cambridge History of India. in some respects) as considered below.
Firishta and the authors of the Mirät-i-Sikandari," the Mirāt-Ahmadi, and of the Arabic History of Gujarato give the following list -
(1) Muzafar Shāh (Muzaffar I); (2) Ahmad Shah (Ahmad); (3) his son, Muhammad Shāh (Muhammad); (4) his son, Kutub-ud-din (Qutb-ud-din Ahmad Shāh); (5) Daud (Da'ūd) and (6) Mabmdd (Mahmud I), second son of Muhammad Shah.
Thus our inscription leaves out Nos. (4) and (5), viz., Kutub-ud-din, son of Muhammad Shāh, and Daud, a brother of the latter (No. 3) and an uncle of the former (No. 4). But it does take note of Mahammada (called by the Muslim historians "Muhammada ")-& name which was bestowed upon Tätär Khăn by his father Zafar Khăn before the latter proceeded to Delhi. This event, however, took place when Zafar Khan was still a governor under the Delhi emperors and not an independent ruler of Gujarat. Our inscription seems to refer to Mahammada in that capacity when it calls him Mahipati, though it is possible that this title merely recalls the short period of Mahammada's sovereignty referred to above. The latter inference is all the more probable because the inscription besides giving him the epithet Mahipati does not credit him with any conquests.
But it is not in our inscription alone that the names Kutub-ud-din and Daud are omitted. They are not found also in two Arabic inscriptions one of Mahmūd himself and the other from Bãi Harir's well. They are missing also in the legends on the silver coins of Mahmud. Moreover, these inscriptions refer to Muhammad (Tātār Khan), son of Muzaffar Shāh, as Muhammad Shāh, implying thereby that he was one of the independent Sultans of Gujarat.
Two other points in the genealogy of the present record are worth noting. (1) Though Ahammada (No. 3) and Mahamuda (No. 5) were the sons of Nos. 2 and 4 respectively, they are not explicitly called so as Nos. 2 and 4 are called the sons of Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. They are merely introduced with the words "in the family were born...". (2) The names of Kutub-ud-din and Daud are omitted from tbe list. The omission of Daud may be understood because his reign was very brief; moreover, he was not the direct descendant. But Kutub-ud-din was the eldest son of Mahammada and had a glorious, though brief, reign of about 7 years, 12 and the reason for his omission in the epigraphs cannot be easily explained. It is possible that
1 Vol. III, pp. 295 fl. and p. 711.
History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power (Tr. from the Persian by Briggs), Vol. IV, pp. 1 and 9; though on pp. 8-9 Firishta does cite a historian according to whom Muzaffar Shah himself, before proceeding to Delhi, conferred upon his son the title Gheias-cod-Dowla-ood-Deen Mohamed Shah'.
Tr. by Faridi, p. 7: he also says that Zafar Khan had invested Tatar Khan with the title of Nasirudin Muhammad Shah. But this was before Zafar Khăn declared his independence.
• Tr. by Bird, pp. 185, 197, 201-02. • Zafar-ul-Walih bi Muzaffar wa Alih (ed. Ross), pp. 1, 3, 14, 909 (900 Vol. III, Index). . See the authorities cited in notes above.
* Briggs, op. cit., p. 9; Faridi, op. cit., p. 8. Bird, op. cit., p. 179 (according to Firishta, Tatár Khan im Prisoned his father and assumed the title of Mohammed Shah); Ross, op. cit., p. 904 gives his name as Muhammad Khin, and Tatár Khan as his title.
• Ep. Indo-Mos., 1929-30, p. 4.
Ind. And, Vol. IV, p. 367. 10 Ste Catalogue of the Coins in the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay, Sultans of Gujarat, p. xxi.
110. H. L. Vol. III, pp. 301-303; Brigge, op. cit., pp. 37-44; Faridi, op. cit., p. 41; Ross, op. cit., pp. 14,200. 15).
11 It cannot be that he died in suspicious circumstances, because his father Muhammad also died in similar giroprestanoes (Brigg, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 36), though the Cambridge History of India (Vol. II, p. 301) says that he died of severe illuess.
