38 H. G. Kaverfc} 7 — Who ivere the Pathcin Sultans of Dihli'f [No. 1, 



(sic) of the Afghan family of Ghor, governor of Bengal, rebelled against 

 Muhammad". Here again we have his own ideas inserted, for Firishtah 

 knew better than to utter such an absurdity. That author expresses 

 himself in these words under the reign of Muhammad Shah, nicknamed 

 Andhli, ' the intellectually blind'. " At this period, Muhammad Khan 

 Sur, ruler of Bangalah, having raised the standard of hostility," &c. 

 Dow turns the kings of Gujarat and the Bahri rulers of Ahmadnagar 

 into Patans likewise. Under the reign of Salim Shah, he says, (Vol. 

 2, p. 191) when mentioning his death: " In the same year, Mahmud, 

 the Patan king of Guzerat, [He was the descendant of a Tak Piajput 

 from near Tkanesar] and the Nizam of the Deccan, who was of the 

 same nation, died." Compare Briggs here also. Firishtah's words are 

 these: "In this very same year, Mahmud Shah Gujarati, and Burhan 

 Nizarn-ul-Mulk Bahri, likewise died." This Burhan-ul-Mulk was the 

 son of Ahmad Nizam Shah, the founder of the Bahri dynasty and of 

 the city of Ahmadnagar, who was the son of a Brahman of Bijanagar 

 who being taken captive in his childhood, was made a Musalman of, and 

 brought up as one of the slaves of Sultan Ahmad Shah Bahmani." 



The renowned Afghan chief and poet Khushhal Khan, of the Khatak 

 tribe, mentions the two Afghan dynasties in one of his poems. See my 

 ' Poetry of the Afghans', page 197, — 



" The whole of the deeds of the Patans are better than those of the 

 Mughuls ; 



But they have no unity among them, and a great pity it is. 



The fame of Buhlul and of Slier Shah, too, resoundeth in my ears — 



Afghan emperors of India who swayed the sceptre effectually and well. 



For six or seven generations did they govern so wisely, 



That all their people were filled with admiration of them." 



