________________
114
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[May, 1918
of the Zafar-al-Walih, gives a different and more probable account. According to him Raja Ahmad, as he styles the first ruler of Khandesh, was the son of Khvâja Jahân, minister of
Ala-al-din Bahman Shah, the founder of the Bahmanî dynasty of the Dakan. In his history of this dynasty Firishta mentions no amir under this title, and says that Saif-al-din Ghuri was vazir throughout the reign of Bahman, but the Burhan-i-ma'sir describes Khvâjâ Jahan as one Ain-al-dîn, an amir in the service of Muhaminad bin Tughlaq, who, with his son Muhammad, deserted his old master and joined 'Ald-al-din Hasan. When 'Ala-al-din Hasan ascended the throne of the Dakan as Bahman Shah he conferred the title of Khvâja Jahan on the father and that of Shir Khan on the son and rewarded the former with the government of Gulbarga, the capital of the new kingdom. This Khvaja Jahan is certainly not identical with Saif-al-din Ghûrî, who is mentioned by Firishta as holding the governinent of Gulbarga in addition to the post of prime minister, but we may assume that ho was an important amir at the court of Bahman Shah and it is probable that he held the Government of the city of Gulbarga while Saif-al-din held that of the whole province.
Abdallah Muhammad goes on to say that on the accession of Muhammmad I Bahmani, in 1358, KI:vaja Jahan retained the post of vazir until his death, and was succeeded therein by his son Ahmad; not Muhammad, as in the Burhan-i-Ma'ā sir. This is further evidence that he was not identical with Saif-al-din Ghurî who, after an interval passed in retirement, was reappointed vazir, and died in harness at the age of 107 on April 21st, 1397, one day after the death of his master Muhammad II Bahmani, whom Firishta wrongly styles Mahmûd. It even seems doubtful whether Ahmad can be identified with Muhammad, Khvâja Jahan's son, though the two names may be confounded. It is more likely that Ahmad was a younger son of Khvâja Jahân, not mentioned in the Burhan-i-Ma'heir. Ahmad, according to Abdullah Muhammad, disagreed with Muhammad I Bahmani and set out for Daulatâbâd where was the saint Zain-al-din, whom he approached as a disciple. The saint welcomed him as a disciple and said . Well done Raja Ahmad!' Raja meaning Sultân, so that Ahmad took it as a good omen. This account of Abmad's disaffection and of his interview with the saint Zain-al-din of Daulatâbâd enables us to trace his career. Bahman Shâh had a nephew, Bahram Khân Mazandarânî, the son of his sister, whom he married to one of his own daughters and always addreseed as "son", and whom he appointed to Daulatábad, one of the four great provincial governments of the kingdom. Bahram resented the accession of his brother-in-law, Muhammad I, and seems to have expected that he would inherit, on the death of his uncle and father-in-law, at least a share of the kingdom, if not the throne itself, for in 1363, while Fîrûz Shâh of Dihli was in Gujarat, to which province he had retreated on the failure of his first expedition into Sind, Bahrâm sent a mission to him from Daulatâbâd, and invited him to make an attempt to recover the Dakan, promising him his assistance. It was impossible for Fîrûz to abandon his enterprise against Sind, in which was involved the imperial prestige, but the envoys were encouraged to believe that after Sind had been reduced to obedience an expedition to Daulatâbad would be undertaken.
In 1365-66 Bahram Khân, having won over to his causo many of the amirs of the neighbouring province of Berar and secured his financial position by retaining for his own
% This is the correct title of this king, called by Firishta and European authors who follow him Ata-al-din Hasan Kângu Bahmani. See 'JASB., Vol. LXXIII, part 1, extra No. 1904 ; Imperial Gazetteer of India, ii, 385 ; and Zafar al-Walih, i, 159. . si, 632
• Tarikh Piriz Shaht, by Shams-i-Siraj Aflf', p. 224.
