1S75.] H. G. Raverty — Who icere the Pathdn Sultans ofDihli? 27 



many others his predecessors, however, name them separately ? The rea- 

 son is obvious, and he does so correctly. 



After the utterance of some erroneous ideas as to why the Afghan 

 country of Akhar's time was called Afghanistan, centuries hefore it was so 

 called, Firishtah says : " The reason why the Hindus call them [the 

 Afghans] Patans is not known, but it occurs to the mind that during the 

 time of the Musalman Sultans [that is, those rulers who were styled Sultans, 

 prior to Babar's time], when they [the Afghans] first came into Hind, 

 they having taken up their abode in the city of Patnah, the Hindus styled 

 them Patans." Here he shows his ignorance of the previous history of the 

 Afghans. 



Alluding to the Rajah of Labor coming to an accommodation with 

 them [p. 30], and giving up to them sundry towns or villages in the 

 Lamghanat, Firishtah says : " the tribe of Khalj, who dwelt in that desert 

 tract [ j/ 37 " 9 , in distinction from hill tracts, the more level tracts or plains] 

 as hangers-on upon the Afghans, he made co-partners [in possession of the 

 lands] with them, on the stipulation that they, the Afghans, should defend 

 the frontier [of Hind, or his dominions], and not permit Musalman troops 

 to enter Hindustan. The Afghans in the hills near Peshawar constructed 

 a stronghold which they named Khaibar, and, having possessed themselves 

 of the territory of Soh, during the sway of the Samani Maliks, they did 

 not permit them [the Samanis] to disturb the territory of Labor, and hence, 

 from first to last, their invasions and ravages were directed towards Sind 

 and Bhatiah." Firishtah then proceeds to describe Roh, as Afghan writers 

 had previously done, including Khan Jahan Ludi himself, a contemporary 

 of Firishtah, and the author of a History of the Afghans, from which work, 

 in all probability, Firishtah took his description. Khan Jahan, who was of 

 the Ludi tribe of Afghans, will not be found to have made Turks [inclu- 

 ding Khaljis] and Ghuris of them, and it may be presumed that he knew 

 something at least about his own ancestor and people, as well as the 

 author of the Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi, which I -shall have to refer to. 



Firishtah then refers to Sabuk-Tigin, " who was the sipah-salar of 

 the forces of Alb-Tigin," but such was not the case [as shown in the 

 Tabakat-i-lSTasiri, page 71], both of which chiefs Dow styles Subuctagi and 

 Abistagi respectively. Firishtah appears to have been totally unacquainted 

 with the names of Alb-Tigin's son, Is-hak, and of Balka-Tigin, and of 

 Pirey, who held authority over Ghaznin and its dependencies before Sabuk- 

 Tigin. " Sabuk-Tigin," he says, " was powerless in opposing [coercing ?] 

 the Afghans ; and afterwards he entered into a good understanding with 

 them; but Mahmud, his son, subdued and humbled them, put their chiefs 

 to death, and compelled Afghans to enter his service." 



This last statement of Firishtah's, respecting Mahmud's taking At- 



