20 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVII, 
resented by the “slaves of Firoz Shah,” and the dynasty 
v 
needed open support. When Firoz died, Muhammad was 
the son of Zafar Khan, as a claimant for the throne.’ 
This account, it is submitted, is incomplete. When 
Tughlaq succeeded, it was obviously to the advantage of Zafar 
o remain in the background. When Tughlaq was deposed, 
the right of succession would devolve in the natural sequence 
on Zafar; but if Zafar was away from Delhi, if he was still, for 
the sake of argument, in his western viceroyalty, the obvious 
course was to take his son as his representative. By putting 
forward Abubakr, the claims of Zafar could be maintained 
against Muhammad, who in his strongholds of the north 
thought of nothing but the recovery of the sovereignty 
which he had esercised for a year or more. 
According to the coins, Tughlaq reigned from the death 
of Firoz in 790 till his death in Safar 791, Zafar reigned in 791, 
and Abitbakr reigned in 791 and 792. The vast majority of 
the coins of Abubakr bear the date 792 and those of 791 are 
rare. Consequently it is reasonable enough to suppose that 
his rule comprised but a short period of 791. In Ramzan 792 
Muhammad reoccupied the throne, a fact which accounts for 
the existence of a few coins bearing his name and that date, 
although the resistance of Ababakr was not finally overcome 
till Muharram 793, 
€ conclusion is irresistible. Zafar, under the style of 
Firoz Shah Zafar, succeeded Tughlaq II, but survived his 
ns, 
when both Firoz and Zafar were dead and another Sultan 
ruled in Delhi. 
It may fairly be argued that the adoption of the title of 
Firoz Shah in conjunction with Zafar was done to strengthen 
years and his prestige was immense. The third son, Muham- 
mad, styles himself invariably Muhammad Shah Firoz Shah 
and not Muhammad Shah bin Firoz Shah, and the point though 
small is not insignificant. 
