Vol. VII, No. 11.] The Belkhara Inscription. 767 
[V.S.] 
from the mention o thram, Budaun (which I-yal-timish 
held the fief of), Kinnauj and several other places, which were 
taken in Sultan Muizz-ud-din’s reign, either by himself or 
Malik Kutb-ud-din, Ibak.’’ 
—p. 628, note 2. 
But I believe Major Raverty could not grasp the purport 
of these double mentions properly. There are two different 
ways in which this can be explained : 
(1) The city of Kanauj was taken by Sultan Muhammad 
bin Sam after the battle of Chandawar, but subsequently fell 
into the hands of the Hindus, and so had to be re-conquered 
by Altamsh ; or 
(2) only the kingdom of Kanauj was partly conquered by 
Muhammad bin Sam, the reduction of the city being effected 
the list of Shamsi victories, Shergarh being the special honorific 
Islam Shah,! but its mention in the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri makes it 
much older. It is more probable that Maulana Minhajuddin 
meant the kingdom and not the city of Kanauj when he wrote 
that the Sultan started towards Kanauj and Benares. e 
trouble was going on in the newly conquered kingdom, and it is 
evident even from the Tabagqat-i-Nasiri ; thus we have at the 
beginning: ‘‘ Badaun, Banaras and the defeat of Rae Man’’ 
and again at the beginning of the account of Malik Nasir-ud-din 
Malmud? 205 oo. 6 after a considerable time, in the year 
martyrdom, he overthrew and sent to hell; and the refractory 
infidels, who were in different parts of the country of Awadh, 
he reduced and overcame, and brought a considerable number 
under obedience.’’—pp. 628-29. We have another proof of the 
1 Cat. of Coins, Indian Museum, vol. ii, part i, p. 117-118, vol. iii, 
intro., pp. lxxiv. 
