1S75.] H. G. Eaverty— Who were tie Paihdn Sultans of Dilili ? 29 



the conversion of the Ghuris to Islam, and says "but the author of the 

 Tabakat-i-Nasiri and Fakhr-ud-Din Mubarak Shah the Marw-ar-Eudi [see 

 my translation, page 301], who composed a history," etc. ; but Dow leaves 

 this out entirely, and Briggs, such seems the infatuation for viewing all 

 things in a " Patau" light, translates the last part of the sentence [p. 50] 

 " FuJilir-ood-Deen Muharik Lody who wrote a history" etc. Instead of 

 Marw-ar-Eudi (^s^jjh jy ), he read Ludi (\s^), the name of Sultan Buh- 

 liil's tribe, which, no doubt, he thought must be correct. People referring 

 to these translations, and finding this statement reiterated, time after time, 

 that the Ghaznawis and Ghuris were " Afgans or Patans", concluded that 

 Firishtah must have so stated, and that he must be right, and so they 

 wrote their accounts of " Patan Sultans," " Patan buildings," and " Patan 

 coins," but they do not seem to have considered that, even if the Ghuris 

 were Patans, it did not follow that their Turkish slaves, and other Turks, 

 and Tatars, should also be Patans. I do not doubt that many Persian 

 scholars will be surprised to hear that there is nothing of the kind whatever 

 in Firishtah, any more than there is in any other Asiatic writer, but such 

 is the fact, and Firishtah's text on examination will prove it. 



Farther on [p. 132], Dow states : " The genealogy of the kings of 

 Ghor, according to the most authentic historians, could be traced up, by 

 the names, for three and twenty, and downwards nine generations, from Ali 

 to Mamood, the son of Subuctagi," &c. There is nothing of the kind in 

 Firishtah. He renders the names of their ancestors as Minhaj-i-Siraj, and 

 some others give them, name by name, down to Zuhak the Tazi, but Dow 

 not understanding what followed, concealed the " nine generations" down 

 to Mahmud of Ghizni, to whom the Ghuris were no more related than they 

 were to Dow himself. It was from this passage, I have no doubt, the 

 author of " a Student's Manual of Indian History" was led into the error 

 of calling Mahmud of Ghaznin "the great ancestor" of Sultan Mu'izz-ud- 

 din. 



I now pass from the Ghuris and their Turkish slaves, and their slaves, 

 to the Tughluk dynasty, who are also included among the " Patans" and 

 " Pathans " by English writers who follow Dow and Briggs. 



At p. 295, vol. I, Dow says : " We have no true account of the pedi- 

 gree of Tuglick. It is generally believed that his father, whose name was 

 Tuglick, had been in his youth brought up as an imperial slave by Balin. 

 His mother was one of the tribe of Jits. But indeed the pedigrees of the 

 kings of the Patan empire make such a wretched figure in history," etc. 

 Compare Briggs also here. 



Firishtah says [page 230] — "The chroniclers of Hindustan, both the 

 ancients and the moderns, being negligent, not one of them has recorded 

 with the pen of certainty aught respecting the origin and lineage of the 



