
Vol. IV, No. 4.] Certain Disputed or Doubtful Events. 153 
[W.S.] 
for securing booty natural to these Turkish tribes. The troopers 
looted the city with the palace and went away. They did not take 
possession of that part; and, if they had tried, they would have most 
likely failed, as their base in Bihar was too far off and too recent 
0 be of much avail. On removing the seat of government to Lakha- 
nawati, there wasan attempt to secure permanent Siri yoetg of 
some part of Bengal. On the north Diw-kot, where 
return from the disastrous inroad to Tibbat, was avidly in 
possession of the Mussalmans. On the south Lakhan- or was outside 
their jurisdiction, because Mubammad-i Sheran had been deputed 
with a force towards it at that time. Diw-kot is identified with 
Dandamnma, about 70 miles N.E. of Gaur; La khan- -or is identified 
with Nagor by Stewart and with L: \carcondah by Blochmann; but 
neither pate tout is satisfactory, both being far ibe from the 
river Bhagirathi. Even if either of these identifications be accept- 
would be not more than 90 miles a ccs The tract 
between the two is thus hardly large and forms an insignificant 
part of the Bengal —— Tabakat-i itself carefully speaks of 
Lakhanawati only; it is only the later writers who dilate on the 
vaunted conquests of Bengal. In fact, if such plundering inroads 
of Ghazni has better claims foe being credited with ‘the eee of 
entire Hindistan. 
(ii) Ghiyas-ud-din Husam-ud-din ’Iwaz Khalji. 
The date of his actual accession is not free from doubts. He 
f. 
Ghiyas-ud-din *Iwaz : 
re BosemOnk. ing to this statement, therefore, his acces- 
sion took place at the earliest in 612 H. his does not : agree with 
the date deducible from his predecessor’s death. His predecessor, 
"Ali-i Mardan, had accompanied Kutb-ud-din in his expedition to 
Dihli and was put in charge of Lakhanawati. He was in charge 
for some time when Kutb-ud-din died in 607 H. He was, therefore, 
in a probably in 606 H., at the latest in 607 H. His reign 
lasted “two years, more or less this means two years an 
some cate then, counting from 607 H., he must have been killed 
by the Khalj Amirs at the latest in 610 H. Who then ruled in the 
inches years 610--612 H.? It is possible that the Khalj 
Amirs fought oe themselves until Husam-ud-din ’Iwaz got the 
per aac in 612 
is said in the Tabakat-< : “ His affairs reached such a point 
Time of his inde- 
pendence = was stamped, and the khutbah there- 
read in his name, and they styled him 
1 Similar doubts exist as regards the date of death of Mnhammad-i 
Sheran ; see the summary at the end. 
