Indian Antiquary Vol 47

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 124

120
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[MAY, 1918
his authority seems to be the Useful Tables, 17 published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, but what the authority for those tables is I do not know. The Muntakhab-al-Lubab, a work which, so far as its account of the dynasties of the Dakan goes, is admittedly a mere epitome of Firishta, gives the date as Sep. 27, 1501, so that it is clear that the date given in the Bombay text of Firishta is a misreading.
According to the Burhan-i-Ma'âşir, a most untrustworthy authority for the reigns of the earlier Nizam Shahi kings of Ahmadnagar, Adil Khân II, who is described as "Adil Shah, was succeeded on the throne of Khândesh, in accordance with his will, by his son “Mahmud Shah Faruqi," whose presumption in styling himself Shah aroused the wrath of Mahmûd Baikarah of Gujarât. A long and confused account of the invasion of Khandesh by Mahmud, of Ahmad Nizam Shah's expedition to assist "Mahmud Faruqi," and of the defeat and discomfiture of Mahmûd Baikarah follows. Another version of this story is given by Firishta in the only passage in which he quotes 18 the Burhan-i-Ma'asir, called by him the "Wagai-Nizâmsháhiyyah which Sayyid 'Ali Samnâni was writing in the reign of Burhan Nizâm Shâh II, and which he never lived to finish," but in this version Mahmûd Baikarah is represented as coming to attack and Ahmad Nizam Shah to support 'Adil Khân II, and the mythical "Mahmud Shah Faruqi” is not mentioned. Firishta discredits the story, as well he may. Not only has Sayyid 'Ali been obliged to juggle with the chronology of the Fårûqi dynasty, but he has invented a Fârûqî ruler who never ascended the throne and fathered a son on the childless ‘Adil Khân. The motive for the invention of the story was doubtless a desire to conceal the discomfiture of Abmad Nizam Shah, who was at this time attempting to wrest the fortress of Daulatâbâd from the brothers Sharaf-al-din and Wajih-al-din and beat a hasty and undignified retreat on hearing that Mahmûd Baikarah was marching through Khândesh to the relief of the fortress.
On the death of 'Adil Khân II, Mahmûd Baikarah took no steps to obtain the throne for his protégé Alam Khân, the adopted heir, and 'Adil Khân's brother Dâ'ûd Khân would have succeeded peacefully had not a strong party among the amire of Khandesh been bitterly opposed to him and proclaimed instead of him his infant son Ghazni Khân; but Glazni Khan's party was overcome and Da'ad Khân retained the throne.
It is almost impossible to follow the events of Dâ'ûd's brief but troubled reign. Accord ing to Firishta Dâ'ûd entertained the design of annexing part of the Nizâm Shâhi dominions and to this end committed some acts of aggression. It seems impossible that so feeble a monarch should wantonly have provoked so powerful a neighbour, but there is no doubt that Ahmad Nizam Shah invaded Khândesh in this reign, though according to the Burhani-Ma'asir it was not until after Da'ad's death that he attempted to enthrone in Burhanpûr a pretender, 'Alam Khân Fârûqî, not to be confounded with the protégé of Mahmûd Baikarah, who bore the same name. The silence of the author of the Burhan-i-Ma'asir is easily
11 Ain.i-Akhart, Colonel Jarrett's translation, ii, 227, n. 2.
18 ii, 189. Major J. S. King, in his preface to The History of the Bahmans Dynasty, says, "Though the two authors (Firishta and the author of the Burhan-i-Ma'sir) were contemporaries and probably met one another in Al madnagar neither makes any mention of the other," and adds, in a note referring to Firishta, "he never mentions the Burhan-s-Ma'asir unless he alludes to it under some other title. Professional jealousy probably accounts for this. But the work quoted by Firishta as the Waqd'i-ig Nizamahdhiyyah is undoubtedly the Burhan-1-Ma'agir, Major King is, however, quite right in saying that Firishta does not mention the Burhan-i-Ma'asir in the long list of authorities cited at the beginning, of his history.